No mental health issue in america.

[Sea Dangles]

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

The fatherlessness in black culture has very little to do with these rare mass shootings. It has a lot to do with everyday street crime, like the 500 homicides a year in Chicago. True or false?

And I hate citing those stats. But they are worth citing when talking about things that are driven by those stats.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

You two are meant for each other. This has nothing to do with Obama or Trump. Nothing to with R or D.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

R's won't budge on guns. D's won't budge on culture, morality, family values, whatever you want to call it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

R's won't budge on guns. D's won't budge on culture, morality, family values, whatever you want to call it.

Culture, morality, family values? Look at who the dems elected in 08 and 12 compared to who the republicans elected in 16.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Culture, morality, family values? Look at who the dems elected in 08 and 12 compared to who the republicans elected in 16.

Who was the democratic candidate in 2016? June Cleaver? Because I thought it was Hilary Clinton, one of the very few people in the country who cannot claim the moral high ground in a debate with Trump.

Trump is POTUS, the most powerful politician in the country, no question. He isn't the Republican party, all republicans are the republican party, and plenty of us despise Trump as a person.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Who was the democratic candidate in 2016? June Cleaver? Because I thought it was Hilary Clinton, one of the very few people in the country who cannot claim the moral high ground in a debate with Trump.

Trump is POTUS, the most powerful politician in the country, no question. He isn't the Republican party, all republicans are the republican party, and plenty of us despise Trump as a person.

I am not going to take the time to respond to everything you said as I would rather watch the olympics, but the Republican high ground on morality is one of the greatest perpetual falsehoods of the last 50 years. I didn't claim Hilary had moral high ground, just as you shouldn't claim Republicans have moral high ground. It is 100% bogus.
By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south. They are in the red states, the same states that take more in taxes than they pay in taxes, the states with the rates of highest teen pregnancy, the highest rates of welfare and food stamp participation, the state with the lowest education levels, the lowest per capita income.

Murder rate per capita 1950- 4.6 per 100000.
Murder rate 2013 2014- 4.5. Bumped to 5.2 in 2016.
It is way more 1950's now than during the reign of Ronnie when it was 7.9-10.2.

Divorce rates changed when laws changed (1967). Thank God. An aunt of a high school friend was disowned by her father, a devout Catholic, for getting a divorce, even though her husband beat her repeatedly. Dad was a man of the 50's when America was "great. Thankful the law supporter her choice.

STD rates? I took a quick look: gonorrhea and syphilis lower now than 1950's. Chlamydia and HIV don't show up in the statistics until the 1980's so who knows. You literally make up things off the top of your head based on your perceptions rather than real data.

GOP in the white house- doesn't represent the will of the majority of voters. GOP in state legislatures- many places it gets 40% of the votes and ends up with 70% of the seats. The real voter fraud.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There's a deeper breakdown that's creating anger in men that doesn't know how to vent and I agree it has nothing to do with politics. I read the other day that only 5% of mass shooters had a diagnoseable mental illness. While Cruz certainly had issues going after mental illness like Trump has been is just a way to excuse the violence as nothing we can address.

In a free society, violence is addressed by punishing the perpetrator. In an authoritarian society, it is diminished by punishing everybody.


I don't think it has anything to do with the breakdown of the family either Jim. You love to cite stats around the breakdown of black families but mass shootings by non black killers are 5 times higher and most of that is likely gang crime.

We have evolved into a society where the influence of family units is progressively undermined by the power and influence of the larger "family," the state. It is more of an appropriation of some of the control and influence that family units had rather than a breakdown of that control and influence. Though it is resisted by many who still believe in what Jim refers to as family values, it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility.

The different "systems" produce different societal results.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

We have evolved into a society where the influence of family units is progressively undermined by the power and influence of the larger "family," the state. It is more of an appropriation of some of the control and influence that family units had rather than a breakdown of that control and influence. Though it is resisted by many who still believe in what Jim refers to as family values, it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility.

The different "systems" produce different societal results.

"it is gladly consented to by many of the post-1960-government-educated who want to be released from total or near total responsibility"

Bingo. And the results speak for themselves.

And it's gladly consented to by the idiotic masses, because abdicating responsibility for raising your kids to the schools, is a lot easier than taking on that responsibility. My life would be a lot easier if I could spend all day indulging myself instead of spending today making breakfast for 5, playing on the swings, taking one kid to basketball practice, taking another to a hitting lesson, then taking them all to see the Harlem Globetrotters. I could be drinking beer at the Springfield Camping Show instead, and letting my kids fend for themselves on the Internet. But I believe I forfeited that right when I decided to have kids (not a permanent forfeit, I can indulge myself again when my second grader is out of college, 14 more years of my being enslaved).

[Pete F.]

Something interesting to read
https://brenebrown.com/blog/2017/11/08/gun-reform-speaking-truth-bull#^&#^&#^&#^&-practicing-civility-affecting-change/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

The agency was "spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign", Mr Trump tweeted.
The White House has refused to release a photo of President Donald Trump signing a law making it easier for some people with mental illness to buy guns.

the president's own annual budget proposed this week would cuts hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for mental health programmes.


Look at what they do not what the say Trump is regurgitating what Fox news or should I say the Trump news network . Was saying after the shooting

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The agency was "spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign", Mr Trump tweeted.

How vile this is is beyond words.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How vile this is is beyond words.

It's truly a vile thing to say.

It's vile to use that event as a club against those with whom you disagree. It's vile when Trump does it, and it's vile when Senator Chris Murphy does it.

[Sea Dangles]

It's not so much what they did as what they didn't do. Terrible stain on this agency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It's not so much what they did as what they didn't do. Terrible stain on this agency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a puzzle of missing pieces from how the FBI didnt follow up, local agency Failure to report and why Federal law allows people 18 and over to legally purchase long guns. but cant drink until 21

but some how Trump has made this Tragedy about him

some of the current 3000 young adults who were at school that day are seeing the world thru different eyes

[Pete F.]

Better look back in History
When the United States first became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15–20 weeks after conception.[6]

Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803, and various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s that codified or expanded common law. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Some argue that the early American abortion laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by concern about the procedure's safety. However, some legal theorists point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and the fact that many of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.[7]

A number of other factors likely played a role in the rise of anti-abortion laws in the United States. Physicians, who were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, appear to have been motivated at least in part by advances in medical knowledge. Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Moreover, quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. On a logical basis, many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening.[8] Ideologically, the Hippocratic Oath and the medical mentality of that age to defend the value of human life as an absolute also played a significant role in molding opinions about abortion.[8] Doctors were also influenced by practical reasons to impose anti-abortion laws. For one, abortion providers tended to be untrained and not members of medical societies. In an age where the leading doctors in the nation were attempting to standardize the medical profession, these "irregulars" were considered a nuisance to public health.[9] The more formalized medical profession disliked the "irregulars" because they were competition, often at a cheaper cost.

Despite campaigns to end the practice of abortion, abortifacient advertising was highly effective in the United States, though less so across the Atlantic. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates in the United States suggest between 20-25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion.[10] This era saw a marked shift in those who were obtaining abortions. Before the start of the 19th century, most abortions were sought by unmarried women who had become pregnant out of wedlock. Out of 54 abortion cases published in American medical journals between 1839 and 1880, over half were sought by married women, and well over 60% of the married women already had at least one child.[11] The sense that married women were now frequently obtaining abortions worried many conservative physicians, who were almost exclusively men. In the post-Civil War era, much of the blame was placed on the burgeoning women's rights movement.

Though the medical profession expressed hostility toward feminism, many feminists of the era were opposed to abortion.[12][13] In The Revolution, operated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, the writer stated, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. [...] No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."[13][14][15][16] To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men.[17] Even the "free love" wing of the feminist movement refused to advocate for abortion and treated the practice as an example of the hideous extremes to which modern marriage was driving women.[18] Marital rape and the seduction of unmarried women were societal ills which feminists believed caused the need to abort, as men did not respect women's right to abstinence.[18]

However, physicians remained the loudest voice in the anti-abortion debate, and they carried their anti-feminist agenda to state legislatures around the country, advocating not only anti-abortion laws, but also laws against birth control. This movement presaged the modern debate over women's body rights.[19] A campaign was launched against the movement and the use and availability of contraceptives.

Criminalization of abortion accelerated from the late 1860s, through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the American Medical Association.[20] In 1873, Anthony Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made it illegal to deliver through the U.S. mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material. It also prohibited producing or publishing information pertaining to the procurement of abortion or the prevention of conception or venereal disease, even to medical students.[21] The production, publication, importation, and distribution of such materials was suppressed under the Comstock Law as being obscene, and similar prohibitions were passed by 24 of the 37 states.[22]

In 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. Some states included provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest.[23] Abortions continued to occur, however, and became increasingly available. The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921 to promote the founding of birth control clinics and enable women to control their own fertility.[24]

By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.[25]

[wdmso]

2014 President Barack Obama took heavy criticism when he went golfing last month during his vacation just minutes after denouncing the militants who had beheaded an American journalist.

So would the president want a second chance and do things differently?

Obama tells NBC's "Meet the Press" that there always will be tough news somewhere, but that he "should've anticipated the optics" of immediately going to play golf.

Trump Joins Mar-a-Lago Disco Party After Visiting Survivors Of School Shooting

crickets

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Democrats and Republicans flipping parties (exactly as zimmy asserted) had less to do with racism

zimmy EXACTLY asserted that it was a racist switch: he said "By the way, democrat racism? That is your party now. I'm sure you are aware they changed parties, which is why the democrats don't win the south."

And the racist Democrat officeholders on the federal, state, and local levels, except for a very few, did not switch parties.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was not a racist strategy. He ran as an anti-racist. He basically helped to desegregate the South's schools.

and more to do with the expansion of Federal power. Republicans in the northern states wanted to invest and expand into the west. Democrats in the southern states opposed it just as they feared the erosion of states rights over slavery.

The flip happened a few decades later as some Democrats started pushing for Government expansion to attract voters as the western states became more populated. Naturally this created opposition up until the New Deal when the reverse in polarity was complete.

I'm not following your timeline, but yes, there was a flip by the VOTERS, not by the parties. Many of the younger voters in the South by then had already begun to join the rest of the country in disavowing racism and they joined the existing older voters who were not racist to bring about the flip. So race did have an affect on the switch, but the opposite effect than we are led to believe by Democrat spinners. And the South, as it became more Republican, became less racist.

And yes, there was a strong states rights sentiment in the South. And that was not just about race, and less about it by the time of the "switch." As long as the South remained majority racist, that was enough reason to continue to vote for the racist Democrat politicians who also claimed to be states rights advocates (even though they mostly voted with Progressive big government Democrat policies at the national level). The Republicans in the South were always the anti-slavery, anti-racist, and less government party. As sentiments changed, due mostly to Republican efforts nationally, the Southern population, especially the younger segment, the overwhelming racist character of the South changed, but the desire not to be ruled by the federal government remained. So the natural party left for the majority of Southern voters would be the one which was not racist and which espoused less federal power and the maintenance of state and local power.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm not following your timeline, but yes, there was a flip by the VOTERS, not by the parties.

As I noted above, this simply isn't supported by history.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

As I noted above, this simply isn't supported by history.

Your timeline was unclear and your post here is not connected to mine.

[Pete F.]

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

[scottw]

I had no idea that the republicans were the party of Lincoln......making a note of that...

I think Spence need to be sent to concussion protocol...starting to think he hit his head....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.

The Republicans voted for all the civil rights acts. They integrated the southern schools, all before the "switch." I don't see how that was supposed to be attractive to racist southerners. After the so called switch, the South, unarguably, became less racist.

LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

LBJ was an ego-centric racist. That "quote" you post, if he actually said it, is racist. He supposedly also said that if he could get the civil rights act passed, the Dems would have the n***ers for two hundred years.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Here is the relevant section of a Wikipedia article that is fairly neutral on the subject, not as balanced toward Republican influence as it should be, but Wikipedia often slants left on political subjects so this is about as fair as Wikipedia gets:

"After World War II, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force because the legislation had now been passed. More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.[1]
The New Deal program of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) generally united the party factions for over three decades, since Southerners, like Northern urban populations, were hit particularly hard and generally benefited from the massive governmental relief program. FDR was adept at holding white Southerners in the coalition[2] while simultaneously beginning the erosion of Black voters away from their then-characteristic Republican preferences. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s catalyzed the end of this Democratic Party coalition of interests by magnetizing Black voters to the Democratic label and simultaneously ending White control of the Democratic Party apparatus.[3] A series of court decisions, rendering primary elections as public instead of private events administered by the parties, essentially freed the Southern region to change more toward the two-party behavior of most of the rest of the nation.
In the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956 Republican nominee Dwight David Eisenhower, a popular World War II general, won several Southern states, thus breaking some white Southerners away from their Democratic Party pattern. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term “Solid South” to describe the states’ Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably. Goldwater won many of the “Solid South” states over Democratic candidate Lyndon Johnson, himself a Texan, and with many this Republican support continued and seeped down the ballot to congressional, state, and ultimately local levels. A further significant item of legislation was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which targeted for preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice any election-law change in areas where African-American voting participation was lower than the norm (most but not all of these areas were in the South); the effect of the Voting Rights Act on southern elections was profound, including the by-product that some White Southerners perceived it as meddling while Black voters universally appreciated it. The trend toward acceptance of Republican identification among Southern White voters was bolstered in the next two elections by Richard Nixon.
Denouncing the forced busing policy that was used to enforce school desegregation,[4] Richard Nixon courted populist conservative Southern whites with what is called the Southern Strategy, though his speechwriter Jeffrey Hart claimed that his campaign rhetoric was actually a “Border State Strategy” and accused the press of being “very lazy” when they called it a "Southern Strategy".[5] In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the power of the federal government to enforce forced busing was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. Some southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Of the known Dixiecrats, only three switched parties becoming Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin, Jr. In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, however, the ability to use forced busing as a political tactic was greatly diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann and ruled that students could only be bused across district lines if evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.
In 1976, former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter won every Southern state except Oklahoma and Virginia in his successful campaign to win the Presidency as a Democrat, but his support among White voters in the South evaporated amid their disappointment that he was not the yearned-for reincarnation of Democratic conservatism besides ongoing economic problems. In 1980 Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan won overwhelmingly in most of the South.[b]
Losing the South[edit]
In 1980, the Southern Strategy would see fruition when Ronald Reagan announced that he supported states rights and that welfare abuse justified the need for it.[6] Lee Atwater, who served Reagan's chief strategist in the Southern states, claimed that by 1968, a vast majority of southern whites had learned to accept that racial slurs like "nigger" were very offensive and that mentioning "states rights" and reasons for its justification had now become the best way to appeal to southern white voters.[7]

With race less important, economic and cultural conservatism (especially regarding abortion) became more important in the South, with its large religious right element, such as Southern Baptists.[8] The South became fertile ground for the GOP, which was becoming more conservative as it shed its liberal "Rockefeller Republican" faction. The large black vote in the South was solid for liberal Democrats. Well-established Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially in Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) number of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.[9]
Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are sizable numbers of Conservative Democrats who cross party lines and vote Republican in national elections.[10]
Dr. Ralph Northam, a Democrat and the 2017 Democratic nominee for Governor of Virginia has admitted that he voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[11] Despite this admission, Northam, a former state Senator who has served as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia since 2014 easily defeated the more progressive candidate, former Congressman Tom Perriello, by 55.9 percent to 44.1 percent to win the Democratic nomination.[12]
A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21–14 Republican majority in the Arkansas Senate.
Another exception is North Carolina. Despite the fact that the state has voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1980 until 2008 the governorship (until 2012), legislature (until 2010), as well as most statewide offices, it remains in Democratic control. The North Carolina congressional delegation was heavily Democratic until 2012 when the Republicans had occasion, after the 2010 United States census, to adopt a redistricting plan of their choosing. The current Governor is Roy Cooper, a Democrat.
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President. Unlike Carter, however, Clinton was only able to win the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia. While running for President, Clinton promised to "end welfare as we have come to know it" while in office.[13] In 1996, Clinton would fulfill his campaign promise and the longtime GOP goal of major welfare reform came into fruition. After two welfare reform bills sponsored by the GOP-controlled Congress were successfully vetoed by the President,[14] a compromise was eventually reached and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was signed into law on August 22, 1996.[13]
During Clinton's Presidency, the southern strategy shifted towards the so-called cultural war, which saw major political battles between the Religious Right and the secular Left. Southern Democrats still did and do see much support on the local level, however, and many of them are not nearly so liberal as the Democratic party as a whole. Southern general elections in which the Democrat is to the right of the Republican are still not entirely unheard of.[15]
Chapman notes a split vote among many conservative Southern Democrats in the 1970s and 1980s who supported local and statewide conservative Democrats while simultaneously voting for Republican presidential candidates.[16] This tendency of many Southern whites to vote for the Republican presidential candidate but Democrats from other offices lasted until the 2010 midterm elections. In the November 2008 elections, Democrats won 3/4 the U.S. House delegation from Mississippi, 3/4th of the U.S. House delegation from Arkansas, 5/9th of the U.S. House delegation from Tennessee, and achieved near parity in the U.S. House Delegation from Georgia and Alabama. Nearly all white Democrats in the South lost reelection in 2010, however. In the November 2010 elections, Democrats won only one U.S House seat in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas and two out of nine House seats in Tennessee. The Democrats later lost its one Arkansas seat in 2012. Following the November 2010 elections, there was only one white Democratic representative in the Deep South (John Barrow of Georgia), and he lost reelection in 2014. Democrats lost control of the North Carolina and Alabama legislatures in 2010, the Louisiana and Mississippi legislatures in 2011 and the Arkansas legislature in 2012. In 2014, the last damage occurred when Democrats lost 4 U.S. senate seats in the South (in West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana) that they had previously held. In 2015, Democrat John Bel Edwards, was elected governor of Louisiana. In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones was elected Senator from Alabama, breaking the Democratic losing streak in Alabama"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

this argument is a little absurd, the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and hated by the south until after the 60s when the Democrats under Kennedy and LBJ moved for voting rights and welfare. At that point the White Democrats of the South went Republican, but not in a day.
LBJ was the one who said this:“I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it,” he said. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Here's a shorter version by a Black political science professor at Vanderbilt University:

[Pete F.]

I think you are all set Jim, here you go. From an op-ed by Bret Stephens and it does go on and on making many of your points quite well.
"In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

On point after point, America’s nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

Educational achievement? Just 17 percent of the finalists in the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search — often called the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of United States-born parents. At the Rochester Institute of Technology, just 9.5 percent of graduate students in electrical engineering were nonimmigrants.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think you are all set Jim, here you go. From an op-ed by Bret Stephens and it does go on and on making many of your points quite well.
"In the matter of immigration, mark this conservative columnist down as strongly pro-deportation. The United States has too many people who don’t work hard, don’t believe in God, don’t contribute much to society and don’t appreciate the greatness of the American system.

They need to return whence they came.

I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning.

On point after point, America’s nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that nonimmigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.

Educational achievement? Just 17 percent of the finalists in the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search — often called the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of United States-born parents. At the Rochester Institute of Technology, just 9.5 percent of graduate students in electrical engineering were nonimmigrants.

I am not sure if Stephens realizes that the "nonimmigrants" to whom he refers, being citizens, have no place to where they can be deported, that they came from here in the U.S., not some other place. I suppose it would be nice if they could be sent somewhere else, if anyone would take them. But there is no legal way to do that, nor should there be.

The nonimmigrant criminals are, I assume, are being dealt with, like, as he says, being prosecuted and imprisoned. Maybe that is not harsh enough for Stephens. Oh well . . . maybe Stephens might want them to have harsher punishments even than that given to illegal immigrants. Maybe torture or cruel and unusual punishment?

The lazy, complacent, ignorant ones, which it seems cannot be avoided no matter what system of government you create, are obviously much more dangerous to our national prospects, whatever his idea of a national prospect is, than illegal immigration. Obviously, since, like all societies, we will have retrograde nonimmigrants, then that surely is a valid reason to also have illegal immigration.

Sorry, but I just don't see why, because we have problematic citizens, we should also have illegal occupants. Maybe, rather than posting a kooky, sarcastic, opinion piece, you could, in your own words, explain why we should welcome illegal immigrants because we have citizens that some might call "deplorables."

[Pete F.]

I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don’t disagree that’s why I said not in a day. I could spend a semester explaining the politics of the last half century and ten times that discussing. But I think LBJs administration was the turning point
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The turning point for making the Republicans the party of racism??? That doesn't make any sense. If it wasn't for the overwhelming majority of Republicans that were responsible for passing all the civil rights bills before LBJ and responsible for the one that LBJ "passed", he would not have that bill to get credit for. And All the Democrats in the South and many in the North up until then had all been racists. LBJ was a racist, but a pragmatic one. As he is reputed to have said, getting credit for the Civil Rights Bill was a ploy to make the real switch that the racist FDR started--the final turning of blacks from Republican to Democrat. All the Southern Democrats voted against those Civil Rights Bills. The myth is that there was this sudden switch in which the Republican Party became the party of racism because of the Civil Rights Bills. That's pure horsesh*t.

And it's undeniable that as the Republicans gained more power in the South, the South became less racist. And the Democrat politicians in the South, at all government levels, did not switch to becoming Republicans. The Southern White voters switch to Republican was far more about state sovereignty and individual rights than race, and Southern racial attitudes were aided in changing by the breakdown of the racist "solid South" as Republicans gained power.

As far as a "turning point" goes, the more important one is the rise of Progressivism beginning in the late 19th century and really getting a stranglehold on American constitutionalism and choking much of the life out of it during the FDR administration. LBJ was the next step. His Great Society initiatives even more solidly entrenched the Progressive agenda. It wasn't just Blacks who were seduced into desiring the all-powerful model of the Progressive Administrative State. The American character has almost fundamentally been transformed. Obama was the next step that almost finished the process. Hillary would have sealed the deal.

That's the real reason all the Progressives in government, the media, and in academia and the unionized K-12 public school system want to destroy Trump. They were so close to finishing off the founding political order. But If he succeeds, it will set back to some degree, maybe a lot, their desired final solution.

Perhaps, what really may set back and reverse the Progressive direction is an awakening to the destruction it has wrought on American culture and its constitutional foundation. For better or worse, life goes on in either case. As always, we live in interesting times.