Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’

[LordBrownTrout]

Well, it is probobly just more of his hyperbolic logorrhea but its an interesting prospect. I say let them go! The Blue States would be better off. Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid. They elect bigots and Fascists to state and national office. They want to deny people the right to vote and want to stifle the free press. They want to deprive people of access to health care including reproductive care ., and there is so much more.

As I have said before, perhaps we should have not have fought the Civil War. If we had just let the south go , we would have been better off in the long run. Sure the scourge of slavery would have lingered longer but that system would crumbled in time as it has elsewhere. It can also be said that slavery never really ended but rather, it morphed into and system of indentured servitude in the form of prison labor camps comprised mostly of black men. So what dis the Civil War really accomplish. Not much other that preserving the union consisting of states with vastly different view and values and producing an increasingly divided nation.

Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’ | Michael Stone (patheos.com)

I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.

I agree.

I'm tired of supporting their deadbeat asses. While they destroy democracy, shred our constitution and take freedom from those who don't agree with them.

They are a drain on our resources and hate the rest of the nation.

I say let them go. First I want them to pay for all the federal infrastructure in their states that belongs to the United States. If they want to keep that infrastructure then have to pay for it.

I say let them support themselves and live in their authoritarian state they want so badly.

Once the leave, they can't come back. They can't come to us with their hands out wanting our tax dollars anymore.

I understand your anger and your frustration but no. They are Americans. Much like family...you can be angry at them but you don't cut em loose.

I think it's more disgust and frustration. I learned it's a waste of time being angry with those people.

I have no problem letting them go. If they want to leave the union, go for it. No American life is worth forcing them to stay.

They want to live in an authoritarian garbage dump, let them.

That's what they're trying to turn the whole nation into. They already have turned the red states into garbage dumps. Or most of them. Let them live as they want to live.

Most of all, let the rest of us live in the real United States of America.

Maybe they will finally be happy and leave the rest of us alone.

If preserving freedom, democracy and what America is really about means letting those garbage dump states leave the union, I am all for it.

Your blue states are under lockdown while red states aren't and you want to accuse someone of authoritarianism? Lol.

Priceless.

 

[bripat9643]

they can secede somewhere else if they want to...
my proposal is send them away over to papua new guinea...
and get the nice people of papua new guinea over...
and they can secede over there all day long...
till the global warming catch up with them...

Move to Cuba if you love Stalinism so much.

 

[bripat9643]

Blue state taxes should no longer go to propping up bankrupt Red states.

All the bankrupt states are Blue, moron. CA, NY, MI, MA, CT etc, etc, etc.

 

[Quasar44]

USA cannot stop succession of 25 states !!
We must do it

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

,,,

It's time we find a new name for conservatives because they damned sure are not conservative anymore. They get more radical everyday and it's because of outrage merchants like Rush pushing absolutist hyperbolic rhetoric. Secession is a stupid idea for a lot of reasons but the one question that I wonder about is who is going to volunteer to be the underclass in their fascist society? Rightist government does not function without an oppressed minority / enemy within / scapegoat population to justify the police state they crave.

Total delusion
I mean Jesus fucking christ total delusion.

There is no other reason any Trumpbot would want to secede other than to create a society where only wealthy white protestant males have all the power. Can't have that without a lot of muscle and an exploited subclass to do all the shit work. What's the use of making your own country if you have to start picking your own crops and cutting your own grass? Gotta have slaves in your new Confederacy so who's it going to be?

How many times do you have to be told it's the dems who owned the slaves and the republicans who freed them ?
Are you stupid or something?

How many times are you assholes going to pretend that the dixiecrats were somehow the ideological forebears of modern liberalism? It's fucking ludicrous. I grew up in Alabama during desegregation and the rise of the "moral" majority. Peddle your bullshit to someone who does not know any better.

Hahaha....you know nothing except lying to yourself.

What do you know jackass? You're just another loser following a loser.

I know you lie to yourself because I read it daily on This very forum.

It's time we find a new name for conservatives because they damned sure are not conservative anymore. They get more radical everyday and it's because of outrage merchants like Rush pushing absolutist hyperbolic rhetoric. Secession is a stupid idea for a lot of reasons but the one question that I wonder about is who is going to volunteer to be the underclass in their fascist society? Rightist government does not function without an oppressed minority / enemy within / scapegoat population to justify the police state they crave.

Total delusion
I mean Jesus fucking christ total delusion.

There is no other reason any Trumpbot would want to secede other than to create a society where only wealthy white protestant males have all the power. Can't have that without a lot of muscle and an exploited subclass to do all the shit work. What's the use of making your own country if you have to start picking your own crops and cutting your own grass? Gotta have slaves in your new Confederacy so who's it going to be?

How many times do you have to be told it's the dems who owned the slaves and the republicans who freed them ?
Are you stupid or something?

How many times do you have to be told that it was a different Democratic Party and a different Republican Party then. It was the southern Democrats who supported slavery and the KKK. The racists fled from the Democratic Party like rats from a sinking ship when the Democrats embraced civil rights, and found a loving home with the Republicans

Debunking the Lie that the Democrats were the Original Racist Party
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

Civil War-Era Political Parties of the North Vs. the South | Synonym

The years before the American Civil War were some of the most divisive in American history. Many northerners favored the abolition of slavery. Others wanted to accommodate the southern states. Southerners favored maintaining slavery and giving power to state governments over the federal government.

classroom.synonym.com

Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party (which was an abolitionist and anti Confederate Party : Radical Democracy Party (United States) - Wikipedia . The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

How Republicans and Democrats switched on civil rights

Ted Cruz’ Dixiecrat ramblings are half-truths

medium.com

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.

In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era


Two things started happening at the same time:
Racist Democrats were getting antsy
Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

Harry J Enten: Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act

www.theguardian.com

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
////////////////////// Democrats Republicans
House 153 of 244 (63%) 136 of 171 (80%)
Senate 46 of 67 (69%) 27 of 33 (82%)


You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes

//////////// Union Confederacy
House 281 of 303 (90%) 8 of 102 (8%)
Senate 72 of 78 (92%) 1 of 22 (5%)




But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
///////////// Dems/Union GOP Union Dems Confederacy GOP Confederacy
House 144 of 152 (95%) 137 of 161 (85%) 8 of 91( 9%) 0 of 11 (0%)
Senate 45 of 46 (98%) 27 of 32 (84%) 1 of 21 (5%) 0 of 1 (0%)

You bought into the whole southern strategy lie. What a dumb ass.

 

[DBA]

Well, it is probobly just more of his hyperbolic logorrhea but its an interesting prospect. I say let them go! The Blue States would be better off. Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid. They elect bigots and Fascists to state and national office. They want to deny people the right to vote and want to stifle the free press. They want to deprive people of access to health care including reproductive care ., and there is so much more.

As I have said before, perhaps we should have not have fought the Civil War. If we had just let the south go , we would have been better off in the long run. Sure the scourge of slavery would have lingered longer but that system would crumbled in time as it has elsewhere. It can also be said that slavery never really ended but rather, it morphed into and system of indentured servitude in the form of prison labor camps comprised mostly of black men. So what dis the Civil War really accomplish. Not much other that preserving the union consisting of states with vastly different view and values and producing an increasingly divided nation.

Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’ | Michael Stone (patheos.com)

I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.

The red states should be encouraged to secede. As the OP stated, "Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid," which is another well known fact the RWNJs deny.

After the red states secede, immigrants from red states, wanting to move to the blue states, must be stopped at the borders. With the scant tax revenue their 21st century conservative Confederacy would collect, government services necessary to the operation of a developed nation would be impossible, and leaders of the united blue states would be fools to permit the red states to come back.


.

Wanna bet that the folks who receive most of the aid in these red states are Democrats? Responsible, working and wealthier working Americans tend to vote Republican, no matter the state.

 

[Aldo Raine]

So Rush wants his legacy to be starting a fucking civil war?

What does he care right?

He'll be gone soon enough

Never soon enough for trash like Rush.

MAGA

 

[DBA]

Well, it is probobly just more of his hyperbolic logorrhea but its an interesting prospect. I say let them go! The Blue States would be better off. Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid. They elect bigots and Fascists to state and national office. They want to deny people the right to vote and want to stifle the free press. They want to deprive people of access to health care including reproductive care ., and there is so much more.

As I have said before, perhaps we should have not have fought the Civil War. If we had just let the south go , we would have been better off in the long run. Sure the scourge of slavery would have lingered longer but that system would crumbled in time as it has elsewhere. It can also be said that slavery never really ended but rather, it morphed into and system of indentured servitude in the form of prison labor camps comprised mostly of black men. So what dis the Civil War really accomplish. Not much other that preserving the union consisting of states with vastly different view and values and producing an increasingly divided nation.

Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’ | Michael Stone (patheos.com)

I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.

I agree.

I'm tired of supporting their deadbeat asses. While they destroy democracy, shred our constitution and take freedom from those who don't agree with them.

They are a drain on our resources and hate the rest of the nation.

I say let them go. First I want them to pay for all the federal infrastructure in their states that belongs to the United States. If they want to keep that infrastructure then have to pay for it.

I say let them support themselves and live in their authoritarian state they want so badly.

Once the leave, they can't come back. They can't come to us with their hands out wanting our tax dollars anymore.

Red states would LOVE for Democrats to leave their state. Blue states would get an even larger influx of deadbeats and red states would be MUCH better off.

 

[sartre play]

Limbaugh, Republican major sh#t disturber.

 

[DrLove]

Well, it is probobly just more of his hyperbolic logorrhea but its an interesting prospect. I say let them go! The Blue States would be better off. Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid. They elect bigots and Fascists to state and national office. They want to deny people the right to vote and want to stifle the free press. They want to deprive people of access to health care including reproductive care ., and there is so much more.

As I have said before, perhaps we should have not have fought the Civil War. If we had just let the south go , we would have been better off in the long run. Sure the scourge of slavery would have lingered longer but that system would crumbled in time as it has elsewhere. It can also be said that slavery never really ended but rather, it morphed into and system of indentured servitude in the form of prison labor camps comprised mostly of black men. So what dis the Civil War really accomplish. Not much other that preserving the union consisting of states with vastly different view and values and producing an increasingly divided nation.

Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’ | Michael Stone (patheos.com)

I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.

Excellent - They can keep Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas. Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama.
Normal folks get the rest!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

,,,

It's time we find a new name for conservatives because they damned sure are not conservative anymore. They get more radical everyday and it's because of outrage merchants like Rush pushing absolutist hyperbolic rhetoric. Secession is a stupid idea for a lot of reasons but the one question that I wonder about is who is going to volunteer to be the underclass in their fascist society? Rightist government does not function without an oppressed minority / enemy within / scapegoat population to justify the police state they crave.

Total delusion
I mean Jesus fucking christ total delusion.

There is no other reason any Trumpbot would want to secede other than to create a society where only wealthy white protestant males have all the power. Can't have that without a lot of muscle and an exploited subclass to do all the shit work. What's the use of making your own country if you have to start picking your own crops and cutting your own grass? Gotta have slaves in your new Confederacy so who's it going to be?

How many times do you have to be told it's the dems who owned the slaves and the republicans who freed them ?
Are you stupid or something?

How many times are you assholes going to pretend that the dixiecrats were somehow the ideological forebears of modern liberalism? It's fucking ludicrous. I grew up in Alabama during desegregation and the rise of the "moral" majority. Peddle your bullshit to someone who does not know any better.

Hahaha....you know nothing except lying to yourself.

What do you know jackass? You're just another loser following a loser.

I know you lie to yourself because I read it daily on This very forum.

It's time we find a new name for conservatives because they damned sure are not conservative anymore. They get more radical everyday and it's because of outrage merchants like Rush pushing absolutist hyperbolic rhetoric. Secession is a stupid idea for a lot of reasons but the one question that I wonder about is who is going to volunteer to be the underclass in their fascist society? Rightist government does not function without an oppressed minority / enemy within / scapegoat population to justify the police state they crave.

Total delusion
I mean Jesus fucking christ total delusion.

There is no other reason any Trumpbot would want to secede other than to create a society where only wealthy white protestant males have all the power. Can't have that without a lot of muscle and an exploited subclass to do all the shit work. What's the use of making your own country if you have to start picking your own crops and cutting your own grass? Gotta have slaves in your new Confederacy so who's it going to be?

How many times do you have to be told it's the dems who owned the slaves and the republicans who freed them ?
Are you stupid or something?

How many times do you have to be told that it was a different Democratic Party and a different Republican Party then. It was the southern Democrats who supported slavery and the KKK. The racists fled from the Democratic Party like rats from a sinking ship when the Democrats embraced civil rights, and found a loving home with the Republicans

Debunking the Lie that the Democrats were the Original Racist Party
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

Civil War-Era Political Parties of the North Vs. the South | Synonym

The years before the American Civil War were some of the most divisive in American history. Many northerners favored the abolition of slavery. Others wanted to accommodate the southern states. Southerners favored maintaining slavery and giving power to state governments over the federal government.

classroom.synonym.com

Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party (which was an abolitionist and anti Confederate Party : Radical Democracy Party (United States) - Wikipedia . The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

How Republicans and Democrats switched on civil rights

Ted Cruz’ Dixiecrat ramblings are half-truths

medium.com

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.

In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era


Two things started happening at the same time:
Racist Democrats were getting antsy
Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

Harry J Enten: Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act

www.theguardian.com

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
////////////////////// Democrats Republicans
House 153 of 244 (63%) 136 of 171 (80%)
Senate 46 of 67 (69%) 27 of 33 (82%)


You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes

//////////// Union Confederacy
House 281 of 303 (90%) 8 of 102 (8%)
Senate 72 of 78 (92%) 1 of 22 (5%)




But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
///////////// Dems/Union GOP Union Dems Confederacy GOP Confederacy
House 144 of 152 (95%) 137 of 161 (85%) 8 of 91( 9%) 0 of 11 (0%)
Senate 45 of 46 (98%) 27 of 32 (84%) 1 of 21 (5%) 0 of 1 (0%)

You bought into the whole southern strategy lie. What a dumb ass.

It is not a lie, and you calling me a dumb ass does not make you sound smart. Quite the contrarry

 

[Winston]

Well, it is probobly just more of his hyperbolic logorrhea but its an interesting prospect. I say let them go! The Blue States would be better off. Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid. They elect bigots and Fascists to state and national office. They want to deny people the right to vote and want to stifle the free press. They want to deprive people of access to health care including reproductive care ., and there is so much more.

As I have said before, perhaps we should have not have fought the Civil War. If we had just let the south go , we would have been better off in the long run. Sure the scourge of slavery would have lingered longer but that system would crumbled in time as it has elsewhere. It can also be said that slavery never really ended but rather, it morphed into and system of indentured servitude in the form of prison labor camps comprised mostly of black men. So what dis the Civil War really accomplish. Not much other that preserving the union consisting of states with vastly different view and values and producing an increasingly divided nation.

Rush Limbaugh Claims Conservative States Are ‘Trending Toward Secession’ | Michael Stone (patheos.com)

I actually think that we’re trending toward secession. I see more and more people asking what in the world do we have in common with the people who live in, say, New York? What is there that makes us believe that there is enough of us there to even have a chance at winning New York? Especially if you’re talking about votes.

The red states should be encouraged to secede. As the OP stated, "Red states contribute less in Federal tax revenues while getting more aid," which is another well known fact the RWNJs deny.

After the red states secede, immigrants from red states, wanting to move to the blue states, must be stopped at the borders. With the scant tax revenue their 21st century conservative Confederacy would collect, government services necessary to the operation of a developed nation would be impossible, and leaders of the united blue states would be fools to permit the red states to come back.


.

Wanna bet that the folks who receive most of the aid in these red states are Democrats? Responsible, working and wealthier working Americans tend to vote Republican, no matter the state.

I love the delusional world you Trumpbots live in. It is kind of cute. The Republican party has been on a downhill slide for decades. Trump has done it no favors. Forty years ago, the Republican party did have some wealthy members, but today the wealthy, for the most part, are independents and more of them lean Democrat than Republican. Even worse, conservatives. The Republican party once had the majority of people that called themselves conservatives, today, the majority, like the wealthy, are independent. Trump has really done a good job of running them off.

Nope, when you so vocally advocate for the Trumpster you pretty much reveal yourself to be white, uneducated, scratching a living and residing in the middle class, usually in the lower end of that middle class. College degrees among rabid Trump supporters are rare despite what the posers on this board would have you believe.

I mean think of two different areas, zip codes even, and if you want to discuss Claritis market segments we can go in that direction. Take Selma Alabama. Now there you have some Trump supporters. Three of the top four market segments, Golden Ponds, Young and Rustic, and Bedrock America. The one thing all three of those groups have in common, low income. Contrast that with Kirkwood, a neighborhood in Atlanta. Five primary market segments, all upscale and wealthy. A Democratic stronghold.

And I have not even touched on the wealthiest zip codes in America. Not a one in the top twenty is even in a red state. Almost all of them are in California, several in New York, and Boston is in that category. I don't have the energy to dig into the top 50 income zip codes. Greenwich is not in the top 20, certainly in the top 50, democrat. Buckhead in Atlanta, got to be in the top 50, used to be number one. Democrat. I mean Bloomberg actually did an article back in 2012, there are 140 zip codes in the US where average income is above $200,000 per person. 140 out of 40,000 zip codes in the US. They overwhelmingly vote Democrat.