Republicans — Not Democrats — Gave Women Right to Vote

[sealybobo]

"Over the weekend, women celebrated #InternationalWomensDay on social media and at events across the globe

The United Nations’ slogan for the day was, “Think Equal, Build Smart, Innovate for Change.”

For Women’s History Month, Rolling Stone magazine featured Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez paying homage to the record number of women serving in the 116th Congress and of course, bashing Republican President Donald Trump.

Democrat females even wore “suffragette white” to last month’s State of the Union address."



......In all of this celebrating and promoting Democrats, the media failed to point out / make clear that Republicans — not Democrats — were responsible for granting women the right to vote in the first place.

It is a trailblazing history of which Republicans should be proud:


"The Women’s Rights Convention held in 1848 was the catalyst for the women’s rights movement. Two years later, another convention followed where the matter was discussed.

By 1870, the Massachusetts Republican State Convention had already seated two “suffragettes” who had fought for the women’s right to vote — Lucy Stone and Mary A. Livermore.

Just two years later, the National Republican Convention of 1872 approved a resolution calling for a wider role for women in the political process, and demanding that “additional rights” for women “should be treated with respectful consideration.”

In 1892, two women delegates from Wyoming were seated for the first time at a national political convention — but it was the Republican National Convention (not the Democrats’.) This same convention was the first time a woman was ever allowed to speak at a national political convention — again, it was a Republican convention.

During her speech, the chairwoman of the Women’s Republican Association of the United States vouched for Republicans’ commitment to granting women the right to vote and said they would see the fight through to the end.

Finally, at the request of Republican Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent — a Republican from California — introduced the 19th Amendment to grant women the right to vote.

The amendment was voted down by a Democrat-controlled Senate."

When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1919, they passed the Equal Suffrage Amendment as one of their first orders of business.

It was a decades-long fight that Republicans saw through to the end."



KERNS: Media Spend Women’s History Month Forgetting Republicans — Not Democrats — Gave Women Right to Vote


.

Yea but remember republicans today would be democrats back then.

Look at how today Republicans say it's not sexism that so few women are ceo's of fortune 500 companies. Republicans blame the women for the fact only 5% of fortune 500 ceo's are women. Even though women are 50% of the college graduates. Republicans say it's strictly women's fault.

Same reason there are less than 1% black ceo's in the fortune 500 companies. Republicans say there are no black or women ceo's because they aren't smart enough.

 

[sealybobo]

Democrats were against women and blacks rights, it was the Republicans who passed amendments to end slavery, grant citizenship and voting rights for black folks,

Now watch the usual baloney replies...…...

Who today is for slavery? If anyone it's white Republicans today. Right? Ever hear of the alt right? Those would have been Democats back during slavery times. Today they vote Republican. Isn't that true?

And who today is against anyone voting? Today Democrats want everyone to vote. Today Republicans are the ones talking about making people pass a test to vote.

So I love it how you Republicans want to take credit for ancient history. Stuff that today you would be against.

it's easy to say you are for the right for women to vote. But today can you explain why only 5% of fortune 500 CEO's are women when they are more than 50% of our college graduates?

And do you admit you think blacks make up less than 1% of the CEO's because they aren't smart enough to be CEO's?

So you may be the ones who freed the slaves but it was us Democrats starting in the 1960's that pushed to give them equality. And you may have given women the right to vote but you would never nominate one to be POTUS.

It's like Republicans in the 2000's were for illegals and nafta and cheap shit from China but today they aren't for any of these things. Flip floppers

 

[Pogo]

The biggest mistake in political history of the country... along with other extensions of voting rights. We were never supposed to be a democracy, and I would attribute our fall in large part to it. There isn't a single good thing that has come out of the extended voting rights. Instead we have gotten bigger and bigger government obsessed with replacing its own population. Today you can vote in American elections without ever even having stepped onto the soil.

Republicans have always had the feature of wanting to appear as not racist as possible, no matter how hard it fucks them and their kind in the ass. Conservatives who fail to conserve anything are the definition of failure.

God did you forget that since the late 1860's, blacks had the right to vote by Amendment, but it was the DEMOCRATS right up the 1960's who tried to prevent black voting, which means for nearly 80 years, their actions were unconstitutional.

It has been by law, legal for blacks to vote since 1869.

When will you assfucks EVER quit lying about this.

It was both Republicans & Democrats in the South that always voted against the civil rights. As proven by the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 21964.

Oh dear, it the Democrats who dominated the south by voting from the 1860's to the 1980's when Republicans finally gained the majority vote. In all that time Republicans were in the minority, who couldn't pass anything.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern Democratic senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Democratic Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[3]

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Overwhelming yes voting from the Republicans, while barely get over 50% yes votes from the Democrats.

​

1957 Filibuster from Wikipedia:

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.[6] His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every US state's election laws in alphabetical order. He later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address.

To prevent a quorum call that could have relieved the filibuster by allowing the Senate to adjourn, cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond discussed increasingly irrelevant and obscure topics."

1964 Filibuster:
​

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]


Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[18]

bolding mine

99% of the opposition were the Democrats.

Clearly you have no interest in factual history after I've already schooled you twice on Composition Fallacy. Here you are running it out again expecting different results.

This time I'm just gonna pick off some juicy points.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

Once AGAIN it was SOUTHERNERS. Your own next line acknowledges that.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable.

Not to be outdone, you then did it AGAIN in the 1964 section. Roll tape.

Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]

YOUR OWN POST, dood.

Next in line please.

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.

Strom Thurmond, who gained his Senate seat as a write-in after the Democratic Party kicked him off the state ballot. And who then took his balls and went Republican when he couldn't stop LBJ and the CRA.

It's kinda funny poking holes in desperation posts.

You are a dishonest person who keeps moving the goalpost, I was making the OBVIOUS point that it was Democrats who strongly opposed the CRA of 1957 and again in 1964, the Republicans NEVER did that. All but one Filibuster were from Democrats, senior Democrats tried to stop the bills process:

"Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill."

bolding mine

and,

"The goal of the 1957 civil rights act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most blacks had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats."

bolding mine

and,

"Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. "

bolding mine

Here is a section you conveniently ignored, because you are very dishonest, 1957 CRA:

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, while Democrat barely passed it, this is the ENTIRE Congress vote.

1964 CRA

"By party

The original House version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[23]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%"

Once again by total vote Republicans voted yes by a lot higher percentage than the Democrats.

Uh NO Sprinkles, you keep running the same bogus argument out there, unable to distinguish "Democrats" from "Southerners".

We've done this CRA map before. So did this handy article. So did my video in 95. So did I, multitudinous times over the years on these pages. Here, I'll even quote one for ya.

[begin paste]
Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats (ayes-nays): 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Non-Southern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Non-Southern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite some polarization.
Et voilà, exactly what we've all been saying while you cherrypick in desperation.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North/West/Midwest -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated.

​

As for the 1957 Act, I already schooled you on that too --- seventeen out of eighteen No votes were from the South. Once again --- SOUTHERNERS. The rest of the Democrats voted in favor of it.

Haven't been able to find a breakdown of the House vote but I have no doubt it will show the same thing. Why? Because it's a recurring and obvious pattern, that's why.

 

[Pogo]

The video quotes very specific historical facts which you cannot refute. So yes, you are a Bigot.

Like what?

Quote one, and I'll take it on. Aaaaaaaaaaaand GO.

I'll take this as meaning you're afraid to watch the video. Thanks for trolling by.

Actually I already have watched it. AGAIN that's where I got the video antidote that I already gave you ----- from the comments in YOUR OWN PropagandaU video.

Wassamatta? Skeered? Or you didn't even watch it yourself? Is that why you don't know any of its points?

As I said from the beginning ----- if you can't articulate a point .... YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.

 

[edthecynic]

"Over the weekend, women celebrated #InternationalWomensDay on social media and at events across the globe

The United Nations’ slogan for the day was, “Think Equal, Build Smart, Innovate for Change.”

For Women’s History Month, Rolling Stone magazine featured Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with Reps. Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez paying homage to the record number of women serving in the 116th Congress and of course, bashing Republican President Donald Trump.

Democrat females even wore “suffragette white” to last month’s State of the Union address."



......In all of this celebrating and promoting Democrats, the media failed to point out / make clear that Republicans — not Democrats — were responsible for granting women the right to vote in the first place.

It is a trailblazing history of which Republicans should be proud:


"The Women’s Rights Convention held in 1848 was the catalyst for the women’s rights movement. Two years later, another convention followed where the matter was discussed.

By 1870, the Massachusetts Republican State Convention had already seated two “suffragettes” who had fought for the women’s right to vote — Lucy Stone and Mary A. Livermore.

Just two years later, the National Republican Convention of 1872 approved a resolution calling for a wider role for women in the political process, and demanding that “additional rights” for women “should be treated with respectful consideration.”

In 1892, two women delegates from Wyoming were seated for the first time at a national political convention — but it was the Republican National Convention (not the Democrats’.) This same convention was the first time a woman was ever allowed to speak at a national political convention — again, it was a Republican convention.

During her speech, the chairwoman of the Women’s Republican Association of the United States vouched for Republicans’ commitment to granting women the right to vote and said they would see the fight through to the end.

Finally, at the request of Republican Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent — a Republican from California — introduced the 19th Amendment to grant women the right to vote.

The amendment was voted down by a Democrat-controlled Senate."

When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1919, they passed the Equal Suffrage Amendment as one of their first orders of business.

It was a decades-long fight that Republicans saw through to the end."



KERNS: Media Spend Women’s History Month Forgetting Republicans — Not Democrats — Gave Women Right to Vote


.

I’m curious. Republicans today called themselves Confederates. Were they Confederates back then too? What happened between then and now?

The Right are also anti-woman now and blame them for everything since they got the right to vote.

August 8, 2008
RUSH: Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us, by the way. If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit, but that's another story.

 

[edthecynic]

And let's not forget

All the lying scum Right ever has is lies and photoshop!

But if photoshop is now fact then take this!

 

[easyt65]

And let's not forget

All the lying scum Right ever has is lies and photoshop!

But if photoshop is now fact then take this!

Funny how this never stopped the woman who reportedly once screamed out 'You Jew Bastard' from ever taking any of his money for elections....

 

[Pogo]

I was doing brain surgery when I was four.

You did. I taught you everything you know...and I was 3 at the time.

Cool. I taught Leonardo daVinci at the age of minus 500.

​

 

[easyt65]

I was doing brain surgery when I was four.

You did. I taught you everything you know...and I was 3 at the time.

Cool. I taught Leonardo daVinci at the age of minus 500.

You ever thought about running for political office?

 

[sealybobo]

God did you forget that since the late 1860's, blacks had the right to vote by Amendment, but it was the DEMOCRATS right up the 1960's who tried to prevent black voting, which means for nearly 80 years, their actions were unconstitutional.

It has been by law, legal for blacks to vote since 1869.

When will you assfucks EVER quit lying about this.

It was both Republicans & Democrats in the South that always voted against the civil rights. As proven by the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 21964.

Oh dear, it the Democrats who dominated the south by voting from the 1860's to the 1980's when Republicans finally gained the majority vote. In all that time Republicans were in the minority, who couldn't pass anything.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern Democratic senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Democratic Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[3]

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Overwhelming yes voting from the Republicans, while barely get over 50% yes votes from the Democrats.

​

1957 Filibuster from Wikipedia:

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.[6] His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every US state's election laws in alphabetical order. He later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address.

To prevent a quorum call that could have relieved the filibuster by allowing the Senate to adjourn, cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond discussed increasingly irrelevant and obscure topics."

1964 Filibuster:
​

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]


Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[18]

bolding mine

99% of the opposition were the Democrats.

Clearly you have no interest in factual history after I've already schooled you twice on Composition Fallacy. Here you are running it out again expecting different results.

This time I'm just gonna pick off some juicy points.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

Once AGAIN it was SOUTHERNERS. Your own next line acknowledges that.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable.

Not to be outdone, you then did it AGAIN in the 1964 section. Roll tape.

Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]

YOUR OWN POST, dood.

Next in line please.

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.

Strom Thurmond, who gained his Senate seat as a write-in after the Democratic Party kicked him off the state ballot. And who then took his balls and went Republican when he couldn't stop LBJ and the CRA.

It's kinda funny poking holes in desperation posts.

You are a dishonest person who keeps moving the goalpost, I was making the OBVIOUS point that it was Democrats who strongly opposed the CRA of 1957 and again in 1964, the Republicans NEVER did that. All but one Filibuster were from Democrats, senior Democrats tried to stop the bills process:

"Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill."

bolding mine

and,

"The goal of the 1957 civil rights act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most blacks had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats."

bolding mine

and,

"Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. "

bolding mine

Here is a section you conveniently ignored, because you are very dishonest, 1957 CRA:

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, while Democrat barely passed it, this is the ENTIRE Congress vote.

1964 CRA

"By party

The original House version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[23]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%"

Once again by total vote Republicans voted yes by a lot higher percentage than the Democrats.

Uh NO Sprinkles, you keep running the same bogus argument out there, unable to distinguish "Democrats" from "Southerners".

We've done this CRA map before. So did this handy article. So did my video in 95. So did I, multitudinous times over the years on these pages. Here, I'll even quote one for ya.

[begin paste]
Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats (ayes-nays): 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Non-Southern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Non-Southern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite some polarization.
Et voilà, exactly what we've all been saying while you cherrypick in desperation.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North/West/Midwest -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated.

​

As for the 1957 Act, I already schooled you on that too --- seventeen out of eighteen No votes were from the South. Once again --- SOUTHERNERS. The rest of the Democrats voted in favor of it.

Haven't been able to find a breakdown of the House vote but I have no doubt it will show the same thing. Why? Because it's a recurring and obvious pattern, that's why.

You seem to forget facts don't matter to Republicans. They will repeat the lie. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

How the media should respond to Trump’s lies: State of the Union edition

Trump’s lying has put the press in a lose-lose situation. Trump thrives on opposition, and often the media plays right into his hands, feverishly chasing every lie and half-truth he utters or tweets.

He manipulates the media by constantly tweeting and saying more and more outrageous things. The media says, “Well, we have to cover the president. We have to repeat what he says.” But there is no real reason this has to happen. Journalists could, if they choose to, ignore the president’s tweets.

I wrote a book called Don’t Think of an Elephant, which makes the point that if you negate a frame, you activate the frame. When Trump says something and people working in the media deny it, they’re helping him. But they don’t realize that they’re helping him.

There’s another possibility. Journalists could engage in what I’ve called “truth sandwiches,” which means that you first tell the truth; then you point out what the lie is and how it diverges from the truth. Then you repeat the truth and tell the consequences of the difference between the truth and the lie.

If the media did this consistently, it would matter. It would be more difficult for Trump to lie.

Sean Illing
So you’re saying that instead of amplifying the president’s message by repeating it in the course of debunking it, we should focus on his tactics and talk about the truths he’s trying to suppress.

George Lakoff
Well, not just talk about the truth he’s trying to suppress. The truth sandwich is more than that. It shows the difference between the truth and what he’s saying — putting the truth first, and then putting it afterward, and talking about its consequences.

People say, “Oh, well, here’s the real fact.” That doesn’t really matter because Trump is getting his frame out there first. What he’s trying to do in each of the tweets he sends out is to frame something first and then repeat it.

Notice that when you repeat something, you’re strengthening it in people’s brains. The more a neural circuit is activated, the stronger it gets. Trump is using certain communicative tactics that are very sophisticated and he doesn’t realize it.

What you should do is start a threat called How the Republican Party Has Changed on Sexism and Racism Over the Years.

 

[easyt65]

You seem to forget facts don't matter to Republicans. They will repeat the lie. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Another day, another attempt by snowflakes to accuse others of what they do and of who they are.

Conservatives are creatures of facts and evidence. Democrats / snowflakes are unstable creatures ruled by emotion.

Here is an example of Democrats / Snowflakes 'intellectually discussing' the outcome of the 2016 election:


[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsapi.com.au%2Fimage%2Fv1%2F7568345c42268f904bb253672e0993a3&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.com.au%2Ffinance%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Fthe-crying-hillary-supporter-who-became-a-meme%2Fnews-story%2F661190e4ed3f3ddca509e672f240bef1&docid=8PWMA2kykbiFfM&tbnid=367Qr1p_8AKkfM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjFnL3xs4LhAhVjm-AKHc3nD4kQMwgpKAIwAg..i&w=650&h=366&bih=876&biw=1628&q=hillary%20supporters%20crying&ved=0ahUKEwjFnL3xs4LhAhVjm-AKHc3nD4kQMwgpKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8'] [URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FHvLa9bhslns%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHvLa9bhslns&docid=ZU0sPeoKBBembM&tbnid=vmaehQbR5CLDEM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjtj8mPtILhAhUQmeAKHYCRBTIQMwhAKAQwBA..i&w=1280&h=720&bih=876&biw=1628&q=democrats%20screaming%20on%20-%20scream%20day&ved=0ahUKEwjtj8mPtILhAhUQmeAKHYCRBTIQMwhAKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8']
[/URL]
[/URL]

 

[RealDave]

You seem to forget facts don't matter to Republicans. They will repeat the lie. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Another day, another attempt by snowflakes to accuse others of what they do and of who they are.

Conservatives are creatures of facts and evidence. Democrats / snowflakes are unstable creatures ruled by emotion.

Here is an example of Democrats / Snowflakes 'intellectually discussing' the outcome of the 2016 election:


View attachment 250246 View attachment 250247 View attachment 250248

Funny chit coming from a Trump supporter. Trump never knows any facts. He lies & you suck it up like a dry sponge in a cesspool.

 

[Pogo]

I was doing brain surgery when I was four.

You did. I taught you everything you know...and I was 3 at the time.

Cool. I taught Leonardo daVinci at the age of minus 500.

You ever thought about running for political office?

Couldn't do it. I'm godawful at spewing bullshit.

 

[sealybobo]

You seem to forget facts don't matter to Republicans. They will repeat the lie. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Another day, another attempt by snowflakes to accuse others of what they do and of who they are.

Conservatives are creatures of facts and evidence. Democrats / snowflakes are unstable creatures ruled by emotion.

Here is an example of Democrats / Snowflakes 'intellectually discussing' the outcome of the 2016 election:


View attachment 250246 View attachment 250247 View attachment 250248

Funny chit coming from a Trump supporter. Trump never knows any facts. He lies & you suck it up like a dry sponge in a cesspool.

Trump has a habit of repeating the same lies over and over. Since taking office Trump has repeated 150 untruths 3 times. The increase in lies is evidence that Trump has felt more confident running his White House as he pleases, keeping his own counsel, and saying and doing what he wants when he wants to. Lies are Trump’s political secret sauce.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave three briefings in all of July, while previous Administrations conducted them daily. In the briefings, Sanders repeated a number of false claims. To me, the striking thing was that Sanders’s false claim was part of her prepared remarks; she read them from a piece of paper. It wasn’t off the cuff lying. It was prepared lies. The White House assault on the truth is not an accident—it is intentional.

 

[Hale]

When will you assfucks EVER quit lying about this.

It was both Republicans & Democrats in the South that always voted against the civil rights. As proven by the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 21964.

Oh dear, it the Democrats who dominated the south by voting from the 1860's to the 1980's when Republicans finally gained the majority vote. In all that time Republicans were in the minority, who couldn't pass anything.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern Democratic senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Democratic Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[3]

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Overwhelming yes voting from the Republicans, while barely get over 50% yes votes from the Democrats.

​

1957 Filibuster from Wikipedia:

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.[6] His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every US state's election laws in alphabetical order. He later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address.

To prevent a quorum call that could have relieved the filibuster by allowing the Senate to adjourn, cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond discussed increasingly irrelevant and obscure topics."

1964 Filibuster:
​

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]


Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is Martin Luther King, Jr.
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[18]

bolding mine

99% of the opposition were the Democrats.

Clearly you have no interest in factual history after I've already schooled you twice on Composition Fallacy. Here you are running it out again expecting different results.

This time I'm just gonna pick off some juicy points.

No it was Democrats who fought the 1957 CRA with Filibuster and low yes votes:

Once AGAIN it was SOUTHERNERS. Your own next line acknowledges that.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable.

Not to be outdone, you then did it AGAIN in the 1964 section. Roll tape.

Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]

YOUR OWN POST, dood.

Next in line please.

"Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law.

Strom Thurmond, who gained his Senate seat as a write-in after the Democratic Party kicked him off the state ballot. And who then took his balls and went Republican when he couldn't stop LBJ and the CRA.

It's kinda funny poking holes in desperation posts.

You are a dishonest person who keeps moving the goalpost, I was making the OBVIOUS point that it was Democrats who strongly opposed the CRA of 1957 and again in 1964, the Republicans NEVER did that. All but one Filibuster were from Democrats, senior Democrats tried to stop the bills process:

"Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill."

bolding mine

and,

"The goal of the 1957 civil rights act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of blacks were registered to vote. Despite being the majority in numerous counties and congressional districts in the South, most blacks had been effectively disfranchised by discriminatory voter registration rules and laws in those states since the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were heavily instituted and propagated by Southern Democrats."

bolding mine

and,

"Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. "

bolding mine

Here is a section you conveniently ignored, because you are very dishonest, 1957 CRA:

The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[4] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[5] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957. "

Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, while Democrat barely passed it, this is the ENTIRE Congress vote.

1964 CRA

"By party

The original House version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[23]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[22]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%"

Once again by total vote Republicans voted yes by a lot higher percentage than the Democrats.

Uh NO Sprinkles, you keep running the same bogus argument out there, unable to distinguish "Democrats" from "Southerners".

We've done this CRA map before. So did this handy article. So did my video in 95. So did I, multitudinous times over the years on these pages. Here, I'll even quote one for ya.

[begin paste]
Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats (ayes-nays): 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Non-Southern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Non-Southern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Non-Southern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NONSOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite some polarization.
Et voilà, exactly what we've all been saying while you cherrypick in desperation.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North/West/Midwest -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated.

​

As for the 1957 Act, I already schooled you on that too --- seventeen out of eighteen No votes were from the South. Once again --- SOUTHERNERS. The rest of the Democrats voted in favor of it.

Haven't been able to find a breakdown of the House vote but I have no doubt it will show the same thing. Why? Because it's a recurring and obvious pattern, that's why.

You seem to forget facts don't matter to Republicans. They will repeat the lie. It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

How the media should respond to Trump’s lies: State of the Union edition

Trump’s lying has put the press in a lose-lose situation. Trump thrives on opposition, and often the media plays right into his hands, feverishly chasing every lie and half-truth he utters or tweets.

He manipulates the media by constantly tweeting and saying more and more outrageous things. The media says, “Well, we have to cover the president. We have to repeat what he says.” But there is no real reason this has to happen. Journalists could, if they choose to, ignore the president’s tweets.

I wrote a book called Don’t Think of an Elephant, which makes the point that if you negate a frame, you activate the frame. When Trump says something and people working in the media deny it, they’re helping him. But they don’t realize that they’re helping him.

There’s another possibility. Journalists could engage in what I’ve called “truth sandwiches,” which means that you first tell the truth; then you point out what the lie is and how it diverges from the truth. Then you repeat the truth and tell the consequences of the difference between the truth and the lie.

If the media did this consistently, it would matter. It would be more difficult for Trump to lie.

Sean Illing
So you’re saying that instead of amplifying the president’s message by repeating it in the course of debunking it, we should focus on his tactics and talk about the truths he’s trying to suppress.

George Lakoff
Well, not just talk about the truth he’s trying to suppress. The truth sandwich is more than that. It shows the difference between the truth and what he’s saying — putting the truth first, and then putting it afterward, and talking about its consequences.

People say, “Oh, well, here’s the real fact.” That doesn’t really matter because Trump is getting his frame out there first. What he’s trying to do in each of the tweets he sends out is to frame something first and then repeat it.

Notice that when you repeat something, you’re strengthening it in people’s brains. The more a neural circuit is activated, the stronger it gets. Trump is using certain communicative tactics that are very sophisticated and he doesn’t realize it.

What you should do is start a threat called How the Republican Party Has Changed on Sexism and Racism Over the Years.

A truly astonishing and utterly circular attempt to deny reality. You really should start a conspiracy theory site, I'd suggest you start by proving that Trump and Hitler are two manifestations of the same alien entity (a mutant squirrel from Flaflooga) occupying parallel universes.

Seriously, you've got a real talent for this kind of work.

 

[Pogo]

Seriously, you've got a real talent for this kind of work.

DOOD. It's been way more than the five minutes you need to watch your own video.

STILL skeered?

 

[Lysistrata]

You are free to explain the republican war on women ....

There never was a 'War on Women'. That was made-up BS from the same people / party who ...


...voted down the right for women to vote.

use them in their crusade to kill babies.

USED them to affect political assassinations of political opponents, the way they did against Herman Cain and tried to with Kavanaugh.

Shoved cigars up inside them / interns then publicly declares, 'I did not have sex with that woman'.

Dropped its pants, tells them to 'suck it', then lies in court to save themselves, only to get disbarred for their deceit.

Created entire Congressional committees dedicated to paying for their silence with tax dollars instead of stopping the sex abuse / crimes.

Left them to die in over-turned cars in water-filled ditches to save their own political careers....

So you can't discuss intelligently policies that impact women. I get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are free to explain the republican war on women ....

There never was a 'War on Women'. That was made-up BS from the same people / party who ...


...voted down the right for women to vote.

use them in their crusade to kill babies.

USED them to affect political assassinations of political opponents, the way they did against Herman Cain and tried to with Kavanaugh.

Shoved cigars up inside them / interns then publicly declares, 'I did not have sex with that woman'.

Dropped its pants, tells them to 'suck it', then lies in court to save themselves, only to get disbarred for their deceit.

Created entire Congressional committees dedicated to paying for their silence with tax dollars instead of stopping the sex abuse / crimes.

Left them to die in over-turned cars in water-filled ditches to save their own political careers....

So you can't discuss intelligently policies that impact women. I get it.

Lice-to-English translation: "Discuss intelligently" = "Tell me that my personal bitchfests are actually speaking for all women"

 

[Lysistrata]

Yup. These "conservative" types are still in the same groove. They can never discuss intelligently issues relating to women.

The Democratic Party voted down the right for women to vote.

They use them in their crusade to kill babies.

They have USED them to affect political assassinations of political opponents, the way they did against Herman Cain and tried to with Kavanaugh.

They shove cigars up inside them / interns then publicly declares, 'I did not have sex with that woman'.

They drop its pants, tells them to 'suck it', then lies in court to save themselves, only to get disbarred for their deceit.

They have created entire Congressional committees dedicated to paying for their silence with tax dollars instead of stopping the sex abuse / crimes.

They have even left them to die in over-turned cars in water-filled ditches to save their own political careers....

...and you seek to point fingers ate and falsely accuse others of what the Democrats have done, still do, and od who they prove they still are?

You are free to explain the republican war on women who want birth control and those who want to abort their unintended pregnancies. You hate women who make their own choices and it shows.

You are free to continue demanding that people justify themselves to you as though your putrescence is some sort of moral standard that real people respect. You are also free to hold your breath while you wait for anyone to give a rat's furry ass what you think.

It seems that you learned a new word. Congratulations. That's hard for fundies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup. These "conservative" types are still in the same groove. They can never discuss intelligently issues relating to women.

The Democratic Party voted down the right for women to vote.

They use them in their crusade to kill babies.

They have USED them to affect political assassinations of political opponents, the way they did against Herman Cain and tried to with Kavanaugh.

They shove cigars up inside them / interns then publicly declares, 'I did not have sex with that woman'.

They drop its pants, tells them to 'suck it', then lies in court to save themselves, only to get disbarred for their deceit.

They have created entire Congressional committees dedicated to paying for their silence with tax dollars instead of stopping the sex abuse / crimes.

They have even left them to die in over-turned cars in water-filled ditches to save their own political careers....

...and you seek to point fingers ate and falsely accuse others of what the Democrats have done, still do, and od who they prove they still are?

You are free to explain the republican war on women who want birth control and those who want to abort their unintended pregnancies. You hate women who make their own choices and it shows.

You are free to continue demanding that people justify themselves to you as though your putrescence is some sort of moral standard that real people respect. You are also free to hold your breath while you wait for anyone to give a rat's furry ass what you think.

It seems that you learned a new word. Congratulations. That's hard for fundies.

You're confused . . . again. Just because the word is new to YOU doesn't make it new to everyone, just as the fact that YOU hate having a vagina does not make that a "women's issue".