CPAC Communications Director: RNC Wrong To Elect ‘A Black Guy’ as Head - Polidicks

[QUOTE]CPAC, or the Conservative Political Action Conference, is where the most outlandish elements of the Republican Party — now known as the mainstream — congregate for four days every winter. (This year, fired-up crowds lustily booed such villains as Mexican immigrants and immigration naturalization ceremonies.) But even for this crowd, Friday night was extreme. At a dinner honoring Republican saint Ronald Reagan, CPAC Communications Director Ian Walters said that “we elected Mike Steele as chairman because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do.” The Observer reported that guests at the dinner gasped in shock. Walters was referring to former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who led the organization from 2009 to 2011, and was in the back of the room when Walters made his remark. Steele lost his bid for a second term to Reince Priebus, and since 2011 has been a mainstay on cable news. He has often been harshly critical of President Trump.[/QUOTE] [url]http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/cpac-comms-director-rnc-wrong-to-elect-black-guy-as-head.html[/url] [url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-rnc-chair-responds-to-comment-about-his-race-and-position/[/url]

[quote]The Observer reported that guests at the dinner gasped in shock.[/quote] were these people actually surprised to hear something like this. Call me cynical but my expectation was for the room to erupt in applause

Can we ban the Republican party yet

Literally how can you justify being a conservative and/or voting Republican at this point

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;53157049]were these people actually surprised to hear something like this. Call me cynical but my expectation was for the room to erupt in applause[/QUOTE] The GOP has been radicalized? Say what?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53157078]The GOP has been radicalized? Say what?[/QUOTE] Well they were invaded by and are being presently [I]turned into[/I] the Dixiecrat Party so I'd say that's pretty radical compared to the much more moderate GOP that existed in the past.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157094]Well they were invaded and are being presently [I]turned into[/I] the Dixiecrat Party so I'd say that's pretty radical compared to the much more moderate GOP that existed in the past.[/QUOTE] If the gop goes full racist and alienate moderates maybe it will create a situation like the one after the Civil War where the republicans had a hold on federal politics but the democrats were super dominant in the south, but the parties are reversed.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53157106]If the gop goes full racist and alienate moderates maybe it will create a situation like the one after the Civil War where the republicans had a hold on federal politics but the democrats were super dominant in the south, but the parties are reversed.[/QUOTE] Those Southern Democrats were the party of the Dixiecrat Party. They were kicked out of the Democrat party because, eventually, the Democrat party was tired of dealing with their ridiculous and extreme racism. The racist elements of the Republican party welcomed them with open arms and they, together, ousted the moderate voices. So now we have a (mostly) deradicalized Democrat party and a radicalized Republican party which has more or less made its moderates (actual conservatives) 'persona non grata'. The situation you describe is more or less already here - there's just less openly racist language being hurled about these days. They only lost favor because Truman railed against and defeated them - but they were popular enough to win e: 4 states in that election. This was the 'Dixiecrat Stronghold' for reference: [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/DemocraticSolidSouth_1876-1964.png[/img] [thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png[/thumb] For those unfamiliar with what the Dixiecrat party was for: [quote]By the 1870s, the conservative voters of southern United States were heavily voting Democratic in national and presidential elections, and apart from minor pockets of Republican electoral strength in Appalachia plus Gillespie and Kendall Counties of central Texas, forming what was known as the "Solid South". [B]The social and economic systems of the Solid South were based on Jim Crow, a combination of legal and informal segregation acts that made blacks second-class citizens with little or no political power anywhere within the southern United States.[/B] Three-time Democratic Party presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan opposed a highly controversial resolution at the 1924 Democratic National Convention condemning the Ku Klux Klan, expecting the organization would soon fold. Bryan disliked the Klan but never publicly attacked it. [B]In the 1930s a realignment occurred courtesy of the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. While many of the Democratic Party members in the southern United States had shifted toward favoring economic intervention, their own recognition of full civil rights for Black Americans was not yet incorporated within the New Deal agenda, as Southerners controlled many of the key positions of power within the U.S. Congress.[/B] With the entry of the United States military into the Second World War, Jim Crow was indirectly challenged as two million Black Americans would serve in the U.S. military during World War II, receiving equal pay while serving within segregated units, and becoming equally entitled to receive veterans' benefits from the United States government. [B]Members of the Republican Party (nominating Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948), along with many Democrats from the northern United States, supported civil rights legislation that the Deep South Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.[/B][/quote] Their motto, which you'll hear constantly repeated now by Republican party folk, was "States Rights".

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157108]Those Southern Democrats were the party of the Dixiecrat Party. They were kicked out of the Democrat party because, eventually, the Democrat party was tired of dealing with their ridiculous and extreme racism. The racist elements of the Republican party welcomed them with open arms and they, together, ousted the moderate voices. So now we have a (mostly) deradicalized Democrat party and a radicalized Republican party which has more or less made its moderates (actual conservatives) 'persona non grata'. The situation you describe is more or less already here - there's just less openly racist language being hurled about these days. They only lost favor because Truman railed against and defeated them - but they were popular enough to win I think 6 states in that election. This was the 'Dixiecrat Stronghold' for reference: [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/DemocraticSolidSouth_1876-1964.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Yep, the other AL senator besides Doug Jones was one of the last of the dixiecrats, part of a group called the "boll weevils" he switched to the republicans after the 1994 midterms. I wonder how t_d and pol would react if the gop went full dixiecrat. (if they do go full dixiecrat I hope they lose most power outside of the south like the situation in my earlier post) [editline]24th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157108] [thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/1200px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] What's with that one vote for Thurmond in Tennessee? A faithless elector? edit: lol I think I sort of made this reply because I thought you correcting me but we agreed

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53157135]What's with that one vote for Thurmond in Tennessee? A faithless elector?[/QUOTE] Those are the electoral college results. In Tennessee the Dixiecrat Party received one electoral vote despite all other electoral college members of that state voting Democrat, as that was who had won the state (by 49% to the Dixiecrats' 13.4%). So yep, a faithless elector.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157159]Those are the electoral college results. In Tennessee the Dixiecrat Party received one electoral vote despite all other electoral college members of that state voting Democrat, as that was who had won the state (by 49% to the Dixiecrats' 13.4%). So yep, a faithless elector.[/QUOTE] Oh I didn't know they made their own shortly-lived party, also I wonder if the alt-right and dixiecrats will fight for control of the gop.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53157169]Oh I didn't know they made their own shortly-lived party, also I wonder if the alt-right and dixiecrats will fight for control of the gop.[/QUOTE] The Dixiecrats already fought for control of the GOP - given the rise of the Alt-right and the GOP backing them, I'd have to say that the Dixiecrats have won control of it. The Alt-right is just who the Dixiecrats want to be - they won't fight over it, they'll 'evolve' to support the Alt-right. The Alt-right is precisely who the Dixiecrats would want to create.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157225]The Dixiecrats already fought for control of the GOP - given the rise of the Alt-right and the GOP backing them, I'd have to say that the Dixiecrats have won control of it. The Alt-right is just who the Dixiecrats want to be - they won't fight over it, they'll 'evolve' to support the Alt-right. The Alt-right is precisely who the Dixiecrats would want to create.[/QUOTE] More specifically, if establishment Republicans try and regain control of Trump and start opposing him, he'll fuck off and form a new party and take all the alt-right candidates, who are an evolution of the Tea Party candidates before them, with him. If the GOP tries to pull itself back towards the center it'll find the right-seeking side ripping itself away so it can push further towards white ethnostate territory. The alt-right and Trump have staged a hostile takeover of the GOP and the establishment Republicans are forced to come along for the ride as a price for not purging the cancer before it took over. Given America's system the results would be Democrat domination from the right's vote being split so I can't say it'd be the worst thing. Democrats can do dumb shit when they've got too much power but I don't think they'd be trying to undo 120 years of social progress. And, thinking about it, the GOP inviting the radicals into their party and then finding themselves being dragged into radicalism or forced out is an even more appropriate use of The Snake as a metaphor than [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-unending-campaign-of-donald-trump/2018/02/23/041c4e32-18bc-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html"]trying to make it into an immigration fearmongering parable like Trump did.[/URL] Of course, the really revealing application of The Snake is that Russian influence is the snake and Trump and pals happily invited it in, and now they're trying to save themselves from being discovered in a massive treasonous conspiracy against the United States, its electoral and democratic integrity, and its people. They knew exactly what they were doing and now it's biting them in the ass repeatedly and they fear they're going to die (or spend life in prison).

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53157159]Those are the electoral college results. In Tennessee the Dixiecrat Party received one electoral vote despite all other electoral college members of that state voting Democrat, as that was who had won the state (by 49% to the Dixiecrats' 13.4%). So yep, a faithless elector.[/QUOTE] Honestly, you should see the UK next election... Labour will probably do worse than 13.4%. :P They're my party but, unfortunately, Conservatives tend to win in Britain when things are going well. Labour only win when it's going badly, and the Greens and LibDems just cannibalise the votes from the other parties, as we're also using a FPTP system. The crazy thing is that we had a referendum on changing to STV and it failed, by the slimmest of margins, but it failed. People are stupid - what's new?

So the CPAC chair tried to apologize for this [video=youtube;7-FSrL6Jhpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-FSrL6Jhpw[/video] spoilers: he fumbled it pretty hard

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53158211]So the CPAC chair tried to apologize for this [video=youtube;7-FSrL6Jhpw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-FSrL6Jhpw[/video] spoilers: he fumbled it pretty hard[/QUOTE] Was that FCC comment a reference to Net Neutrality or, more likely, censure of naughty words? Britain is the opposite, where words like cunt can be used a lot, amongst other expletives, but we have no freedom of speech. Go figure.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158512]nymag.com is not a valid source as per section rules and the CBS article is a "response to comments". Do you have another main source?[/QUOTE] This is a bullshit attempt at deflection. You do realize that the very article you state is an invalid source according to the section rules directly references a far right source (despite being a far left source itself) in regards to the article and [I]that[/I] source also claims the same thing? [url]http://observer.com/2018/02/michael-steele-responds-to-racial-insult-hurled-by-cpac-communications-director/[/url] That article directly quotes from [url=https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/967206692504113153/]this[/url] tweet from a guy who attended. And the second source not only is valid according to the section rules but also directly involves the target of the comments, a guy who [I]also[/I] was in attendance of the event. Literally the first paragraph of the second source: [QUOTE]Former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said he was shocked, disappointed and surprised after a spokesman for the Conservative Political Action Conference said Steele was elected to the position "because he was a black guy, that was the wrong thing to do."[/QUOTE] Also the guy in question has [URL="https://twitter.com/IanBWalters/status/967230311259090944"]indirectly admitted it happened as well.[/URL] So what exactly is your issue here? Cause I'm not seeing it at all.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158512]nymag.com is not a valid source as per section rules and the CBS article is a "response to comments". Do you have another main source?[/QUOTE] real question do you seriously not believe this is true, or are you just trying to get this thread closed?

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158852]Then why not reference the second source as main source? If your source can't refrain from making comments such as , then it's probably not a good source and they're not allowed in this section with good reason.[/QUOTE] Because it doesn't really matter? A valid source is provided nonetheless. Doesn't really matter much which one gets quoted. [QUOTE]The second source provided is suitable, reflects the full story (including the apology from the guy who said it, for whatever good that does), and refrains from dumbass commentary.[/QUOTE] But you just contradicted yourself. [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158512]the CBS article is a "response to comments". Do you have another main source?[/QUOTE] What was the point of this if it's a suitable source? You're just deflecting from the actual story here and causing needless discussion that has been had repeatedly on what constitutes a valid source.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158872]As to your first point, that's dumb. By your logic I could dump a Reuters article on something and provide a quote from Breitbart to go along with it, because who cares, there's a valid source as well right?[/QUOTE] Just because the quoted source is itself not the valid one (according to subforum rules) does not inherently mean it's the worse article. Whichever one includes the most pertinent information should be quoted, even if said article does include some stupid biased comments within.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158512]nymag.com is not a valid source as per section rules and the CBS article is a "response to comments". Do you have another main source?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dave_Parker;53158872]I opened the CBS one on mobile and saw "responds to comments", I should have known it would include a recap of why he'd respond to comments, that's my bad. The CBS source is good.[/QUOTE] Mike Steele was in the room. He's reacted to the comments on camera, in a video posted right here in the thread. Ian Walters apologized on his official Twitter account. I understand wanting to criticize NYmag, because it is pretty trashy. But next time, try looking up all of this easily available info before passive-aggressively questioning the story and trying to get the thread closed. And don't criticize an article, then admit you didn't even read it, because it really destroys the idea that you care about truth at all.