lennybird

lennybird , 2 months ago

To the full-circle thing, I'm not sure what the point is. There was no explicit deadline. Promises by politicians to assert their position have been used since forever. It doesn't change the fact there are obstructions to their good intentions. If I promise something and someone blocks me from viably pursuing it, that's not on me, that's on them: Republicans.

And if they approach it the wrong way, as quoted material suggests, it risks being thrown out by the conservative court making future attempts possibly more difficult.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Friendly reminder that literally all legalization legislation and referendums have come through the Democratic party.

Biden already pledged support. He needs youth vote. There's literally no reason he wouldn't unless he was blocked by Republicans...

... Which he is.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Yes this is literally par for the course for every single presidential campaign in history.

They promise what they'll do. They don't say try to do because that's been tested in marketing and certainty sounds better. Nevertheless it's not Biden's fault his agenda for what he's been voted into office on is being blocked by the opposition for poor reasons.

The question isn't why isn't Biden doing this, the issue is why are Republicans blocking it and why aren't you trying to convince them and their supporters?

lennybird , 2 months ago

For the same reason we take Biden seriously: Legalization has progressed in universally all blue states, has it not?

Ergo, you answered your own question: promises often come to fruition.

So let's not risk letting Republican promises become reality, such as the promise of overturning Roe... Righhtttt?

lennybird , 2 months ago

Let's review this as I'm seeing goalpost moving and circular reasoning present, forgetting curiously strange double-standards in where one directs their attention:

• I highlight the fact that all Marijuana legalization, decriminalization initiatives, referendums have come under the Democratic party with Democratic states being the trailblazers
• You ignore this fact.
• You Pivot to why Biden is making promises he can't keep
• I point to the fact that this is universal and the promise would be kept if it wasn't for Republican Obstruction
• I ask why you concern yourself so much with Biden and not the obvious Republican obstructionists and their base whom you would be better served convincing in their comment threads.
• Again, you ignore this inquiry.
• You pivot to downplaying Trump's bad promises because they MIGHT be obstructed (rightfully so) by Democrats. (Forget the fact that one GOP/Trump Promise of overturning Roe came to fruition)
• I thus this proves my point.
• You, again, ignore this, then circle back to why Biden isn't trying harder. This is ostensibly victim-blaming. In other words, "Why isn't the hero of the story not doing MORE to overcome the villain!?"

It’s more like he’s bandwagoning something that now has popular support, without actually accomplishing much.

Yes, it's pretty normal that popular things are often adopted by Presidential candidates. Kind of a no-brainer, don't you think? As I said before: (1) It's popular, and (2) Biden needs those youth voters. If it's so popular, why isn't Trump doing it? Why are Republicans so opposed? This finally begs the question: Why WOULDN'T Biden support it if he could? The answer is: there is no valid reason, which means Republicans are largely to blame while the workarounds are cumbersome and even run the risk of wasting time in front of the conservative Supreme Court, jeopordizing future attempts at decriminalization.

Politicians change minds. Legalization has become far more popular in recent times. At the end of the day, like it or not, Democrats and Biden are still the best pathways toward decriminalization. We certainly won't get anything out of Trump and Republicans (which it strikes me as odd you tried to downplay Trump above).

At this point if it looks quacks and acts like a duck it probably is one. To bystanders reading this thread, this user demonstrates all classic signs of a right-wing operative intending to gaslight, sow defeatism, and wedge-drive Democrats.

You will see more of this, sadly.

lennybird , 2 months ago

I should clarify: laws that have actually passed.

Yet even so, you point to the edge-case exceptions while I point to the norm. For example, preceding the States Reform Act, Democrats beat them to the punch with the MORE Act, so your point is of such low-hanging fruit and the biggest exception -- NOT TO MENTION -- it literally won't be brought to the floor for a vote thanks to none other than (R) Mike Johnson...

... So your point?

Also, did you forget this? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/

Today, I am announcing three steps that I am taking to end this failed approach.

First, I am announcing a pardon of all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. I have directed the Attorney General to develop an administrative process for the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible individuals. There are thousands of people who have prior Federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result. My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions.

Second, I am urging all Governors to do the same with regard to state offenses. Just as no one should be in a Federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either.

Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Federal law currently classifies marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the classification meant for the most dangerous substances. This is the same schedule as for heroin and LSD, and even higher than the classification of fentanyl and methamphetamine – the drugs that are driving our overdose epidemic.

In effect, Biden has de-facto decriminalized Marijuana. Let me know if he prosecutes marijuana possession in legal states.

lennybird , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

If I promise my kid a trip to their favorite amusement park and then don't get to go because Republicans blew up every bridge along the way to the amusement park, which also flooded because of Climate Change, then that's on Republicans, not me.

lennybird , 2 months ago

You play more hopscotch with reading than my daughter at the playground, lol.

Even if I did, it changes fundamentally nothing about the overarching conclusion. This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. So says Confucius, when the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

Quit looking at pixels; look at the big picture.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Stealth edit? Sorry, I corrected a typo. What did you think I did? LOL.

Like knowing those bridges were scheduled for demolition,

Except in your terrible analogy, this is amplifying momentum for people to vote, which could've inevitably changed the outcome of who controlled the House and Senate. Therefore, Biden couldn't have predicted those bridges to be blown up because it was quite possibly people would make the sensible choice and not put these demolitionists back in Congress.

Republicans have nothing. You will lose.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Are you really that upset that Biden made a promise that he can't keep because Republicans blocked him? The key point in all this is understanding what his intentions are. He laid out his intentions; if he wasn't serious, then he probably wouldn't have advised the DOJ to not prosecute marijuana offenders, or pardon them, huh?

lol.

Republicans have nothing. Trump is going to prison. You will lose.

lennybird , 2 months ago

There's nothing more to discuss, good sir. My arguments remain unchallenged. Like I said, I'm simply playing with the food that is this rhetorical discussion and referencing famous applicable adages. Sorry if you misconstrue this as attacks on the person. Certainly not my intention! I promise I'll refrain from such ad hominems!

This is an obvious sign of “my team” rather than logical thought.

You can make this argument once you respond to >80% of my points that were deflected.

Anyways, I'm pretty happy because my initial comment was heavily up-voted. I already won long ago.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Right is this Harry Potter?

lennybird , 2 months ago

But mUh boTH sIdeS

lennybird , 2 months ago

Holy fuck this obvious wedge driving hahahaha.

lennybird , 2 months ago

If they're arguing in bad faith, odds are high they're just a right-wing operative intending to sow defeatism and wedge-drive. Often they'll pretend being a concerned centrist but nowadays they feign being a leftist or tankie, which kills two birds with one stone.

With this in mind don't stop commenting, just make your strongest arguments upfront and target the bystander audience. It's the only way to act as damage-control. But don't waste your time with them, specifically.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Whoa whoa wait now. You forgot to apply Paragraph #2 to the first as well, in addition to the fact that the first also seeks to enable genocide in Ukraine.

Then you're getting closer.

lennybird , 2 months ago

"SoCiAlism bAd!" said the veteran who lived on base, shopped at the commissary, used the GI Bill and then takes a social security check every month with guv'mint insurance.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Rugged individualists hate them for this one trick.

Literally as dumb as colored bathrooms.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Sounds like between the two sides the US picked the better one, did they not?

What is South Korea today? What is North?

How many did North Korea murder?

How many would they have if we didn't back South?

lennybird , 2 months ago

Republicans have done this for decades to great success. Usually they'll push a wedge-driving issue with online operatives sometimes posing as grandstanding leftists who will vote 3rd party, independent, etc.

It rarely works for Dems, but Libertarians did screw over Trump to some extent last election thanks to Jojo

lennybird , 2 months ago

You really have no idea what you're talking about, for this is spoken like someone still of college age. Forget shortsighted. Sure it may be one thing if you're adept with auto mechanics, but most people frankly are not.

You do realize there is an inflection-point in both cost and reliability (forgetting newer safety and fuel standards) when owning used vehicles...riiiighhht?

lennybird , 2 months ago

We were in a similar position, intending to reinvest in our home, get a utility trailer, while saving up more for land one day.

Conservatives fucked that up. But I appreciate Biden for trying.

lennybird , 2 months ago

That wasn't me but on reflection I apologize for coming off so harshly.

I don't know their situation but sharing a single vehicle can really suck especially if both work and you want to divide and conquer on getting shit done.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Spot-on analysis. Public approval of Israeli action was already shifting heavily away within just the last 2 months. This of course before the latest debacle this past week. As the polls go, so too will Biden... Hopefully.

The other thing is Trump has basically been in campaign mode for years already. Biden and the broader coalition is only starting to ramp up now, and the fundraising has been good. As the money starts being spent that's going to certainly have some impact.

That said I'm still not convinced pollsters have managed go dial in millennials let alone zoomers.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Some of these are clearly wedge-driving divisive trolls posing as leftists. Especially those touting voting 3rd party or not voting.

lennybird , 2 months ago

• What's funny is I'm not even a moderate
• I've just done the comparative analysis in knowing that (a) the election outcome is inevitable where 1 of these 2 candidates will be in office whether you vote or not, and (b) one would commit MORE genocide than the other guy.
• You thus can still vote your conscience.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Can't wait for these supposed "leftists" who-are-totally-not-righties-hiding-behind-anonymity to take for granted literally all the historical and modern day progress that came through none other than — you guessed it — the liberal legislature and liberal Justices.

From child labor laws to the civil rights act to same sex marriage — thank a liberal.

(Disclaimer: I'm further left than liberal on the political spectrum)

lennybird , 2 months ago

Isn't it funny that civil rights activists of the time from John Lewis to Clyburn joined the liberal Democrats?

But yes two things can happen simultaneously: there can be activists, and then there can be liberals who actually passed the Civil Rights Act. You know, liberals.

Sure wasn't confederate conservatives now was it?

lennybird , 2 months ago

This confidently-incorrect fellow, who:

• Increasingly deflected,
• resorted to more personal attacks and,
• ultimately ran away from the discussion after I started citing primary sourced quotes like:

the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus

and:

Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

and:

You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.

From https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm and https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act

For which he could not even respond to let alone refute — Truly believed the 1963 Birmingham letter was some smoking-gun when — checks notes — those same white moderates MLK Jr. was talking about wound up passingthe Civil Rights Act 1 year later.

Yes, you read those quotes correctly: Liberals were pushing to strengthen the Civil Rights Act while conservatives were trying to water it down.

Smh.

Don't tell him which ideology such surviving activists from John Lewis of the Edmund Pettus Bridge march or Jim Clyburn, both of the civil Rights era joined under.

Edit: See what I mean, guys? Still has nothing substantive to respond with. Truth can hurt sometimes. I'm still floored he tried to claim that conservatives supported the Civil Rights Act more than Liberals lol.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Yep I do agree it's bullshit. The FPTP combined with Electoral College has utterly fucked our country. I really wish we could vote for independents or 3rd party and not totally fuck everything. Unfortunately that won't happen until changes most probably comes through Democrats as it has historically worth most other issues.

To your second point, don't know, it just seems extremely self-defeating to the point that one has to wonder...

lennybird , 2 months ago

Normally I'd agree to each their own but I truly cannot grasp how anyone can come to the conclusion that when the two options are inevitable, they would choose more genocide over less genocide. It quite literally means less people dying. It's the only logical and ethical choice.

lennybird , 2 months ago

I can just as easily declare that forcing the Democratic Party to enact progressive legislation by risking their hold on power will have far reaching effects that will save more lives then those extra lost by a trump presidency.

I don't find this comparable because because nobody can force the Democratic party to enact progressive legislation because this is contingent on these policies people popular among the majority of people, which they simply are not yet. In other words, you need to convince more of the electorate before you can even shift this. Whereas in my case, the future is set in stone: We will either have Trump, or we will have Biden. What's more is Democrats literally CAN'T enact such progressive legislation because Republicans are obstructing any progress anyway, so I really have no clue what you're saying here. Get Republicans out of the way, then Democrats would've implemented massive progressive policy long ago.

Remember that for this genocide to even happen the US had to enable it, and we did so 100% under Biden.

That's not even remotely true, though. Consider Israel just starts pivoting into Russia or China's sphere of influence and we lose any influence we have over Israel altogether. You think Israel can't get weapons from elsewhere...? If anything, abandoning Israel too rapidly may have the entire opposite effect that you intend because now we have nothing to hold over them.

Let's again not forget the dire consequences to Ukraine where genocide is largely being prevented by Democratic support to Ukraine (and nevertheless obstructed by Republicans) -- and if Trump gets in, all aid is guaranteed to stop. So now you've got 2 genocides on your hands.

I hope when November comes we all vote for Biden lest we double-down on a downward spiral of entropy and doom generations to come as we take not just 1 step back, but 100 steps back and have to pick up the pieces of the puzzle yet again. For the sake of Ukrainians; for the sake of Palestinians; for the sake of my kids -- everyone is holding their breath in hope of keeping some semblance of sanity in power lest we get the off-the-wall batshit crazy lunatics openly promoting a fascist playbook.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Man I aced reading-comprehension to the point of scholarships; with that I've now read it three times and I'm still no closer to having enough ink to connect those dots.

Isn't it a bit ironic that you quote MLK in 1963 when those very "white moderates" came to be the ones to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I'm really trying to understand you here, so help me.

lennybird , 2 months ago

If only this wasn't a zero-sum game where 100% supporting his "base" didn't alienate key swing-voters in key swing-states...

But arethey really his base if they're so far gone they're okay with playing chicken with Trump....? One has to wonder...

lennybird , 2 months ago

Just let me know when you have a solution for the:

• 1/3 of independents who support Israel
• 1/3 of independents undecided on Israel's actions

In addition to:

• The ~7 million Jewish Americans who predominantly lean to supporting Israel in a time of rising antisemitism and how much Biden must toe the line with these groups.

Biden is quite clearly trying to cater to all these very large impactful groups while throwing a bone to the fringe tankies. Among these groups, tankies are most certainly NOT the most impactful to the outcome of the election, but sure -- he'll take every vote he can get. But your efforts would be better made trying to convince swing-voters and Jewish Americans to stop supporting Israel.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Look I can be very direct and note that I explicitly said that white moderate liberals -- not tankies -- were the ones who passed the legislation that effectively turned long-time civil rights grievances into redressed law, and that is precisely what happened. But sure I'll fully acknowledge that without activists across the range from Malcolm X to MLK Jr., (whom Malcolm X basically said he wasn't leftist and aggressive enough) influenced aforementioned white moderate liberals to action. As I said (and as was deflected and ignored by you), MLK made that statement a year prior to the Civil Rights. Put another way, if anyone thinks MLK would be advocating to let Donald Trump in today by voting 3rd party or not voting, then they are out of their goddamned minds.

Nevertheless good luck getting white southern conservatives to be influenced to such action; and therein lies the difference between the two primary ideologies in America. The point being made is: Progress can still occur via liberals; the same cannot be said should you let Republicans get in office.

Segregationist southerners from both parties opposed the bill while northerners from both parties supported it, and it passed with a bipartisan coalition that was majority Republican. While these Republicans were anti-segregation, they were still free-market, anti-labor, fiscal conservatives, and you don’t get to retroactively turn them into Liberals because of the Southern Strategy.

You prove the point that geography made the difference and as the realignment completed these northern Republicans and Democrats consolidated into a unitary Democratic banner. Also I do not understand what you're referring to when you write the coalition was majority Republican; it was majority Democrat. - 46 Democrats, and 27 Republicans in the Senate and 152 Dems to 138 Republicans in the House For. This makes the total For 198 Dems 165 Republicans. Nevertheless it almost doesn't matter, for as we noted these Republicans, the party of Lincoln still in transition of the party realignment as the Dixiecrats abandoned their coalition, effectively became the liberals of the modern Democrats. It really doesn't matter how one slices it; the overarching premise is that the North of Then voted in favor, and just so happens to split along the Mason-Dixon line just as it does today after the realignment. I sure as shit am not thanking a Southern confederate-adoring conservative, that's for sure; thus it must be predominantly the Northern Liberal amidst both parties during this transitional period who was more predisposed to abolition, more pro-union/labor, and anti-segregation.

Perhaps you're writing from a false premise; have you tried entertaining some humility? I'm open to being wrong, but let's work through this together, shall we?

lennybird , 2 months ago

Nah, I was referring to this but I'll yield that this newer poll shows promising shifts... Which is ultimately why we're seeing a shift in Biden's position against Israel accordingly.

So as I said: your efforts would be better made trying to convince swing-voters and Jewish Americans to stop supporting Israel and you'll see Biden continue to take a harder line. Yelling insults to liberals isn't really doing much good, buddy.

lennybird , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm

To pass a civil rights bill in 1964, the Senate proponents of that bill developed a three-part strategy. First, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield maneuvered the bill away from the Judiciary Committee and made it the Senate’s pending business. Second, a bipartisan legislative team of senators and staff, led by Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey and Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel, developed a plan to defeat a well-organized filibuster. Finally, they enlisted the aid of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Only Dirksen could provide the Republican votes needed to invoke cloture and bring about passage of the bill. “The bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen,” President Lyndon Johnson told Hubert Humphrey. “You get in there to see Dirksen. You drink with Dirksen! You talk with Dirksen. You listen to Dirksen.”

In an era when there were many factional divisions within both political parties, the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus. The filibuster that threatened to derail the civil rights bill in 1964 was not led by the opposition party, but by an opposing faction within the majority party. To invoke cloture on the civil rights bill, Democratic proponents of the bill needed strong Republican support. If the bipartisan team could gain the support of Dirksen, a small-government conservative from Illinois, they might win over other conservatives.

This presented Everett Dirksen with a dilemma. It was a presidential election year and, as one historian commented, Dirksen was asked “to deliver Republican votes in support of a Democratic president who could not bring along enough of his own party to seal the deal.” As the long civil rights debate unfolded, it did so with the backdrop of presidential primaries. The last thing the Senate’s Republican leader should be doing, many argued, was to provide the Democratic administration with a major legislative victory, but Dirksen, a proud Republican from the Land of Lincoln, was determined to preserve the Republican legacy inherited from the Great Emancipator. In addition, there were liberal and moderate Republicans who were deeply committed to the cause of civil rights, and senators such as Jacob Javits of New York urged Dirksen to take immediate action. On the other hand, staunch conservatives like Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa fought Dirksen every step of the way. Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

By late February 1964, as the bipartisan team set to work, Dirksen began tinkering with the bill. Over the next three months, the Republican leader, meeting daily with Humphrey or Kuchel but largely avoiding his caucus, suggested a host of amendments divided into categories of technical and substantive. The lesser amendments corrected or clarified language, while substantive amendments brought compromise among competing views. Throughout the negotiations, Dirksen kept his own counsel. “What is Ev Dirksen up to?” asked the Los Angeles Times. Dirksen is “the master of obscure intention,” wrote the Washington Post, which will be “revealed only in his own good time.” While Dirksen worked with the bipartisan team, key staff negotiated with individual Republican senators.

In early April Dirksen attended the Republicans’ weekly policy luncheon and presented a set of 40 draft amendments. Conservatives, suspicious of the leader’s behind-the-scenes deal-making, expressed only reluctant support. The liberals simply rebelled, accusing Dirksen of watering down the House-passed bill. As the meeting broke up, it was clear that the Republican caucus remained divided. Reassuringly, Senator Humphrey expressed optimism. Dirksen’s “not trying to be destructive,” Humphrey commented. “He’s trying to be constructive.”

The debate in the Senate Chamber continued, as Dirksen produced more amendments while constantly testing the waters looking for support. Details were discussed, agreements were made, and deals were struck as Dirksen worked to gain votes for cloture while maintaining the integrity of the House-passed bill. As Kentucky senator John Sherman Cooper saw it, Dirksen’s proposal would not weaken the bill, but would be “a substantial amendment in developing sentiment for the bill, not only here, but throughout the country. It is going to have appeal.”

---

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act

Lawrence F. O'Brien, President Kennedy's and later President Johnson's chief of liaison with the Congress, recalled it this way:

[Y]ou had a battle on two fronts simultaneously. You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] "we'll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]" . . . We shared their views, and we'd love to do it their way.

We were accused by some of being weak-kneed but, my God, are you going to have meaningful legislation or are you going to sit around for another five or ten years while you play this game? Those liberals sat around saying, "No, we won't accept anything but the strongest possible civil rights bill, and we won't vote for anything less than that." To kill civil rights in that Judiciary Committee was an appalling possibility! And it was not only a possibility, it came darn close to an actuality.

Curse those liberals for demanding a stronger civil rights bill, right!?

Ergo: Liberals supported; conservatives resisted. No tankies in Congress. Thank a liberal. Yes, I'm aware that what is progressive for the time is comparatively conservative by today's standards; that doesn't change the point.

lennybird , 2 months ago

I'm just in disbelief that when the wise man points at the moon, you're still looking at the finger and missing the entire point, which is to say that as much as you complain about those big bad liberals, they're still the ones who actually end up passing the major laws that set the foundation for progress; and alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the decades of cute sit-ins and protests by activists against fascist Republicans (of the modern day) would NEVER, EVER achieve a modicum of change.

lennybird , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Pardon me, but I thought it best to cut through the noise (e.g., patent finger-in-ears denial akin to, "Nuh-uh!") and go straight to citing primary sources of which you curiously deflected; you see, you learn to do that with those fancy scholarships :)

To the contrary I'm pretty sure I pinned you into a corner after trying to claim it was conservatives not liberals who were the standard-bearers of the change. Here you're not trying to play games of equivocation and move the goalpost by essentially allegings, "buT LiBeRals AREn'T ReEallY LibERals!" I mean — what?

I really don't need to go any further, and it's a remarkable reality of your position that you cannot rummage up a single academic source to counter what I had already provided. However, it's a new day and I've got my coffee so let's address some bullshit:

You seem to believe that the Republicans said, “actually, we want to do racism now, let’s start the Southern Strategy!” and all the good Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act became Liberal Democrats

Straw-man. No, that is not what I'm saying at all. If you would've read more closely what I wrote a couple responses back, you would've recalled that I noted the transition took time and didn't complete really until the '70s or even arguably Reagan. Considering

You’re congratulating good white Liberals for passing the Civil Rights Act, when many of the major supporters would be considered conservatives and most of the opponents would be considered Liberals by most metrics.

You're just not making any sense, here. (1) All the union strength and support was in the North. (2) YOU said it was a regional differentiation, with northerners voting in greater numbers. (3) Ergo, the vast majority of support came from districts and states predominantly pro-Union. So... ??? Or what, do you think the southern state's rights anti-union confederates suddenly decided to turn out in great numbers to support the bill...? Let me again remind you what actual historians have to say:

the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus

Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.

... But hey, why don't you go tell those scholars they're using the ideological labels incorrectly ;)

There really isn't much more to say. My original claim was: "not a single Tankie was in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now, did they? So yes, thank a Liberal for actually getting shit done." From that:

I PROVED:

• Liberals of the time among BOTH parties — predominantly in the North — supported Civil Rights in greater numbers
• Liberals were the majority of its YES votes
• Liberals wanted a STRONGER Civil Rights bill
• Conservatives among BOTH parties — predominantly in the south — opposed the bill in greater numbers
• Conservatives sough ta WEAKER Civil Rights bill
• No Tankies passed the Civil Rights Act. (I have to note this as part of my original claim).

I REMINDED YOU:

• That because the parties were still in transition and the great realignment incomplete, there were lingering liberals and conservatives on both sides.
• But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of ardent support for the bill came from those further to the left on the political-spectrum and were ostensible liberals for the time-period. (Again, proven by quoted sources).
• Liberals of today are less conservative than then, sure.
• But Liberals of then were still more progressive than their conservative counter-parts.
• Such Liberals who would become demographically-identical to the modern-day liberals (as proven by mere geographical region alone and the fact that Civil Rights leaders of then eventually JOINED the ranks of Democrats of today (e.g., James Clyburn, John Lewis).
• You keep referencing party banners without looking at the underlying ideology, all the while admitting yourself that the parties were still in ideological realignment.

I therefore entirely reject the notion I'm, "cataclysmically wrong." Seems I'm actually right on the money.

Finally isn't it funny you quote MLK's "White Moderates" remark in 1963 who is ostensibly speaking of what we'd consider centrist liberal Dems today and those very white moderates did end up passing the bill in 1964? You still continue to deflect this amusingly.

lennybird , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Correction:

Without those southern pro-slaver conservative Confederates, the protests wouldn't have been necessary.

FTFY.

And do tell me — which ideology and which party did all those Civil Rights activists from James Clyburn to John Lewis end up joining in Congress...? And which party does MLK Jr.'s descendants , and the vast majority of the black community continue to caucus with today...?

Oh yeah, "those libs."

lennybird , 2 months ago

So it's said, we shouldn't let perfection be the enemy of progress. These purity tests and Gatekeeping only work insofar as they have someone open to change from the inside where the laws are made.

Thank a White Liberal for the passage of the Civil rights act and for being a pathway to change; for, therein again lies the difference that you so whimsically continue to dodge. Liberals have always been the gateway for change. Hence why the aforementioned activists joined their banner.

Never once conservatives.

And for what it's worth, I'm significantly left of the average Democrat and modern liberal.

lennybird , 2 months ago

How closely are you paying attention, because Biden has certainly shifted from what the polls were then, to now. As I've repeatedly demonstrated:

• Conditional aid is now being threatened and likely — this would've been INCONCEIVABLE for literally decades.
• Biden is publicly shaming Netanyahu — this would've been INCONCEIVABLE for literally decades.
• The USA is no longer vetoing and is not SUPPORTING a ceasefire at the UN — This was inconceivable merely weeks ago.

So yes, keep it up. Crying about Biden and those big bad liberals literally does nothing. Go after the people who are actually supporting Israel and — voila — as the polls continue to oppose Israel more, so too will Biden. It's almost like that's Democracy during an election year in action or something...

lennybird , 2 months ago

Post hoc fallacy. You have zero proof of that. Now you resort to ad hominems to supplement your lack of argument?

I knew I had you on the ropes.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Buddy:

• If I can't get through with direct quotes from those who were a part of that era, specifically noting liberals FOR and conservatives OPPOSED

• If I can't cite primary historical sources from Senate.gov and Archives.gov detailing the same.

• If you can't muster a single source to support your position that contrasts what I already cited, as you simultaneously ignore these direct quotes...

... Then I believe we are done here.

It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.

Buddy, if you can't actually remark on exactly where I'm using language wrong, then it's FAR more probable that my word-choice might just strike above what you're used to and this a desperate attempt to sling shade.

Besides, if I "dumbed down" my language to my Appalachian roots, then you'd try condescension with me and espouse how much more educated and academic you are to me. Apparently I beat you to the punch, and that upsets you. Who knows -- maybe there's a bit of personal insecurity and projection going on here. All I know is that it's a pretty fucking pathetic low-blow. Should be noted that I tend to reflect the tone and let them stoop to a lower level. So maybe look in the mirror. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out, buddy.

As for the other user, I don't really care — that kid's frankly not that bright or informed on the issues. At least you presented a cogent argument by contrast. If you think I'm being smug, go join the fucking Trumpers who cry about elitism and feeling insecure around people who are educated — I really don't care, buddy. Now until you actually respond to my sources, my logic, instead of hopping around more than the Easter bunny, then kindly stay down.

Frankly because now your argument has descended into personal attacks on me it sounds like you're — as you said — "cataclysmically" desperate.

---

I think for fun I'll just re-quote the primary sources:

the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus

Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.

lennybird , 2 months ago

Look at that false confidence.

No, I'm good right here.

lennybird , 2 months ago

I'm not worth it, but boy do you go around replying to all my comments obsessively! What's wrong with taking serious discussions, well, seriously? Sorry, I'm just not a meme person, and I frankly don't believe I remotely approached the pettiness as you and the other user in striking low to substitute a lack of substantive rebuttal.

Have you entertained the humbling possibility you're just being out-classed and that's making you uncomfortable? I mean when you make legitimate points I'm willing to yield, such as when you gave me that link to a more recent poll on US perception of Israeli actions.

I know Trump speaks and writes at a 4th grade level and with more memes though — maybe that's more your speed?

lennybird , 2 months ago

I feel I've done nothing of the sort. I'm entirely supportive of engaging in the mutual pursuit of truth, but when my opposition first engages in bad faith arguments, deflections, fallacies, then snarky adolescent memes followed by personal attacks then you open the door to me responding however I wish. It's not my fault you lack the capacity to discuss formally and maturely.

If you go back to the beginning you'll find you engaged in these downward-spiraling antics first.

In other words you're holding me to a higher standard then you hold yourself. Embrace some humility and learn from your mistakes.