Political Cartoons You wish to share

pokermind wrote:A tad risque' but then you need something to get their minds out of the gutter of political mud slinging and into another gutter mild porn

Enjoy, Poker

Or you could just go with who the "family values" GOP who threw a collective hissy fit over Michelle Obama doing such undignified and unlady-like things as wearing sleeveless dresses now apparently wants to make the new First Lady and get a 2 for 1.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/melania-tr ... -revealed/

Got anymore links? That is a great way to lure the Kardashian low information Democrat voter to the Trump camp.-

gcomeau wrote:

pokermind wrote:A tad risque' but then you need something to get their minds out of the gutter of political mud slinging and into another gutter mild porn

Enjoy, Poker

Or you could just go with who the "family values" GOP who threw a collective hissy fit over Michelle Obama doing such undignified and unlady-like things as wearing sleeveless dresses now apparently wants to make the new First Lady and get a 2 for 1.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/melania-tr ... -revealed/

PeterZ wrote:Got anymore links? That is a great way to lure the Kardashian low information Democrat voter to the Trump camp.-

Careful, the last time the GOP decided they wanted to lure the least desirable Democratic voters away from the Democrats they got their wish. Look where that has led them.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Got anymore links? That is a great way to lure the Kardashian low information Democrat voter to the Trump camp.-

Careful, the last time the GOP decided they wanted to lure the least desirable Democratic voters away from the Democrats they got their wish. Look where that has led them.

How was Reagan a bad thing?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Careful, the last time the GOP decided they wanted to lure the least desirable Democratic voters away from the Democrats they got their wish. Look where that has led them.

How was Reagan a bad thing?

I was referring to cementing the GOP as the racist party in the eyes of most of the non white voters in the country for the last 50 years... although I could expound at GREAT length on how the guy whose administration illegally sold military arms to Iran to fund drug running contras in South America while setting the baseline conditions for out of control growth of wealth inequality and massive deficit spending domestically, among many many other things, was a "bad thing".

gcomeau wrote:
I was referring to cementing the GOP as the racist party in the eyes of most of the non white voters in the country for the last 50 years... although I could expound at GREAT length on how the guy whose administration illegally sold military arms to Iran to fund drug running contras in South America while setting the baseline conditions for out of control growth of wealth inequality and massive deficit spending domestically, among many many other things, was a "bad thing".

GOP racist? Oh, like the Democrat controlled inner cities being allowed to turn into violent hell holes?

Seriously, gcomeau, we are facing the results of special interests guiding policies based on ideology and personal gain. This is true from both parties. We will have honest disagreements in policy but should agree that whatever the policy that has been in effect DOES NOT work. We need to change and screw ideology. Too many people have suffered already.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
I was referring to cementing the GOP as the racist party in the eyes of most of the non white voters in the country for the last 50 years... although I could expound at GREAT length on how the guy whose administration illegally sold military arms to Iran to fund drug running contras in South America while setting the baseline conditions for out of control growth of wealth inequality and massive deficit spending domestically, among many many other things, was a "bad thing".

GOP racist?

Please don't act surprised. We're talking about fairly well established political/historical realities here.

The Democrats were the party of the southern/confederate racists from the civil war right up through the 1960s. Then LBJ decided to support the Civil Rights Act, the southern racists got pissed, and the GOP made a decision that "hey, we can attract those voters by opposing the civil rights movement!"

And the electoral map went from fairly reliably something along these lines in the 1960 election with the Democratic stronghold being the strip of southern Confederate states:

http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1960_large.png

To this rather familiar configuration in 1964 where that was flipped on it's head:

http://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/1964_large.png


...in a single election cycle when all those confederate state racist holdouts switched sides. And the fallout has been continuing on ever since. That's up near the top of the list of the worst political decisions from both an ethical and a long term strategic standpoint in US history.

There is a reason the Democrats have a lock on the minority vote, and isn't the childish "oh they promise them free handouts" bullshit fairytales that like to be passed around in conservative circles. It's that those minority voters aren't blind and they can see the decision the GOP made and then continued to stick with for decade after decade.

Oh, like the Democrat controlled inner cities being allowed to turn into violent hell holes?

Perhaps we need to have a discussion on what "racist" means...

Seriously, gcomeau, we are facing the results of special interests guiding policies based on ideology and personal gain. This is true from both parties.

Yes it is. But that doesn't negate the point that you should reconsider the wisdom in the "let's recruit the most undesirable/stupid/ignorant voters we can from the other party's voting base" strategy. Frankly, the Dems would probably be happy to allow you to do it in the long term. There's only so much reinforcement of the perception of the GOP as the party that appeals to morons that it's going to be able to survive and still be able to be taken seriously. And going out and actively recruiting morons isn't exactly going to help its case. I mean, they've already made Trump the face of the party. That's kind of flirting with the giant steel I Beam that broke the camel's back territory already...

Dude, Trump may be many things but he is not racist. The guys has been in the public eye for decades and only now is he being accused of racism. Democrats have routinely accused republicans of being racist, when their policies make decision after decision based solely or primarily on race.

That's why I assert the results of the decades of Democrat policies in the inner cities is racist. The results have a disproportionate impact on blacks and other minorities. That definition is part of the current understanding of racism, no?

We can argue why you believe that race is so important to determine whether a policy should impact someone or not. We have no need to argue that race factors much more into Democrat policies than it does Republican ones. Regardless of motivation the policies show this disparate impact on blacks and minorities. By definition, disparate impact means racism even of there are no overt/obvious racist motives.

PeterZ wrote:Dude, Trump may be many things but he is not racist. The guys has been in the public eye for decades and only is he being accused of racism.

Except, you know, when he was accused of it... over and over and over throughout his career...

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-tr ... sm-quotes/


But that's beside the point. I didn't say Trump is a racist. I didn't say all members of the GOP are racists. I didn't say all leaders of the GOP are racist.


I said the GOP, as a party, made a conscious and deliberate choice to recruit racists into the ranks of it's voting base, and then to continue pandering to them either overtly or with a wink and a nod, for decades. Yes it is home to plenty of non racists, but it hung out a great big "racists welcome" sign and everyone saw them do it.

Democrats have routinely accused republicans of being racist, when their policies make decision after decision based solely or primarily on race.

Addressing the effects of racism, which necessarily involves a concept of race in the policies being used, is not the same thing as practicing racism.

gcomeau wrote:Addressing the effects of racism, which necessarily involves a concept of race in the policies being used, is not the same thing as practicing racism.

It is the same thing if the effects disproportionately and adversely impact racial minorities.