It was a remarkable moment Monday night at the Republican National Convention, surely creating some amount of confusion among longtime Republicans, when Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, delivered a stemwinder of a speech in prime time. He called former President Donald Trump a “tough S.O.B.”

Even the teamsters are showing up.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 months ago

          100% agree, thinking I’ll deprogram a brainwashing victim with some internet comments would be delusional.

          I just don’t want to see anyone sourcing Dinesh as suggested reading without pushback. I don’t want a low information individual to get sucked in by far-right propaganda.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        210·
        5 months ago

        hese were previously mostly Dem but after the deliberate Southern Strategy are mostly Repub. Are? Jim Crow was removed a long time ago and Republicans voted for it 80% vs 61% for the Democrats.

        Republicans have always been about equality.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

        Jim Crow was just Democratic politics and is still their politics.

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            33·
            5 months ago

            Here is a partial list of racists democrats that voted against the civil rights act of 1964 ( there were alot of dems that voted no and I got lazy)and when they stopped being reps/senators.  If the parties switched these guys wouldn’t be representing the racists democrats up to 2010.

            George William Andrews 1972 Robert Emmett Jones 1972 Armistead Selden 1968 Wilbur Mills 1976 James Trimble 1966 Robert Sikes 1978 Charles Edward Bennett 1992 Dante Fascell 1992 Paul Rogers 1978 Don Fuqua 1986 Sam Gibbons 1996 George Hagan 1972 Phillip Landrum 1976 Robert Stephens 1976 William Natcher 1994 Joseph Waggonner 1978 Otto Passman 1976 Gillis Long 1986 Jamie Whitten 1994 Lawrence Fountain 1982 David Newton Henderson 1976 Roy Taylor 1976 Joseph Evins 1976 John Patman 1976 Herbert Roberts 1980 Olin Teague 1978 William Poage 1978 James Claude Wright 1989 Robert Byrd 2010 James Eastland 1978 Sam Ervin 1974 Russell B. Long 1987 John L. McClellan 1977 John Jackson Sparkman 1979 John C. Stennis 1989 Herman Talmadge 1981

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              24·
              5 months ago

              The parties never switched. That’s just a weird Democrat lie. Democrats use to have slaves and now they use welfare and dividing people into groups as their form of bondage

              I’ve never seen a group so focused into turning a portion of who they are into defining themselves. It’s weird as hell

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            26·
            5 months ago

            Not at all. Those same people stayed with the democrats. It is not republicans who are trying to classify everyone and put them into groups for different treatment. That’s the racism still alive and well in the democrat party. Biden didn’t want his kids going to a racial jungle.

            Trump has never said anything crazy like that.

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      92·
      5 months ago

      And Lincoln hated conservatives.

      It’s hilarious that you want me to read “the truth” by a convicted fraudster and conspiracy theorist.

      Also, you didn’t address what I said because you know I’m right and you’re an intellectual coward. So which is it?

      You’re beyond parody.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
        110·
        5 months ago

        Since Lincoln was a conservative. I’d love to see where you get that idea. He hated democrats.

        • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
          101·
          5 months ago

          But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object”, fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty”; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

          Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel?

          Lincoln at Cooper Union

          Read a goddamn book