When the two parties are so closely split it causes every v**e to count, meaning the ones that break ranks from party lines are all lambasted for being t*****rs. They can't face breaking party lines.

Make it a simple majority that one party can make happen on their own or with just a few v**es from the opposing party, and every other member that has people at home that support a bill because it's popular will add their v**e because it doesn't matter in terms of opposing a bill.

Breaking filibuster rules entirely would have the effect of generating much easier bipartisan agendas...it's just the way it is.

What is the difference between the N**is and the southern r****t.

Let see the N**is imprisoned the Jews in labor camps and raped, tortured, shot and gased innocent Jews because they were Jews.

Southern r****t imprisoned B****s in labor camps and raped, hung, shot, murdered and tortured b****s all because they were black.

So what is the difference only in the name N**I/EVANGELICALS OR JUST CALLED THEM SOUTHERN R****T.

Now we have a democracy in this country and we actually allow these savages in the south the right to v**e WHILE THESE SOUTHETN R****T SAVAGES ARE TRYING TO TAKE THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN THERE IDEOLOGY OF MUFDER RAPE AND TORTURE THERE RIGHT TO V**E.

So what’s the difference the N**i savages or the southern savages

My wife writes a blog on the genealogy for both our families and did a fairly long piece about the Civil War Democrats in her family and the "Democratic Clubs" they helped form and belonged to. Now the "Clubs" in this case were started in 1867 as the precursor to forming the KKK, which these "clubs" were all rolled into to form the various chapters of that now infamous group in 1870 and later.


Snip>>>Democratic Party paramilitary groups [Clubs] also emerged in South Carolina during the 1876 state and national campaigns. There, members of these groups called themselves the “Red Shirts.” Their official battle plan, which called for Democratic clubs armed with rifles and pistols, stated in part:

Every Democrat must feel honor-bound to control the v**e of at least one Negro, by intimidation, purchase, keeping him away.

We must attend every Radical meeting. Democrats must go in as large numbers as they can, and well-armed, behave at first with great courtesy and as soon as their speakers begin to tell them that they are liars and are only trying to mislead the ignorant Negroes.

In speeches to Negroes you must remember that they can only be influenced by their fears, superstitions and cupidity. Treat them so as to show them you are the superior race and that their natural position is that of subordination to the white man.

Never threaten a man individually. If he deserves to be threatened, the necessities of the times require that he should die. A dead Radical is very harmless—a threatened Radical is often troublesome, sometimes dangerous, and always vindictive.

Every club must be uniformed in a red shirt and they must be sure and wear it upon all public meetings and particularly on the day of the e******n.

So Democrats were 'honor bound' to stifle the v**e of at least one black man and there is no question that Democrat party gave birth to the KKK.

Now, this is the question, preferably for JW. If we trace the history of liberalism, its single greatest trademark is that it is always progressive; always trying for change, preferably positive. So why are members of the KKK, including my wife's relatives, trying to regress back to a time of s***ery, a time when b****s were held subservient to w****s? Regressiveness is a conservative trademark, not a liberal one, look at what you people are trying to do now! Liberalism, as far back as John Locke, always tried to initiate change...be it, individual rights or the form of government to protect those rights, it was always adding to, not taking away? Isn't that what drives you conservative's so batty now--you want to take away from, not add to? So where do you come up with Southern Democrats being liberals? Shouldn't they at least act like liberals and not conservatives if they were?

https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/south-carolina-red-shirts-battle-plan-1876

Now with Joe Manchin and whoever that whore in Arizona is...the advent of "Blue Dog Democrats" seems relevant today. And excuse me for throwing in Texas; that was the reference that was most convinent.

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/part/features/0304_01/dogs.html

Talk to any old hand about Texas political history, and reference to the days when "yellow dog Democrats" ran the state is bound to come up. Even now, when such animals are an endangered species in the state, the line still gets applause among die-hard Democrats. But at a time when Republicans occupy all statewide offices, and their party holds majorities in both houses of the state legislature, many may ask: "A what Democrat?"

The Democratic Party that dominated Texas politics from Reconstruction through the early 1960s differed considerably from the current Democratic Party. For almost a century, a Democratic Party largely dominated by white conservatives prevailed in almost all statewide e******ns. Some of the benchmark issues that defined the Democratic Party in national politics--such as support for civil rights for ethnic and racial minorities, opposition to U.S. military intervention in the third world, and support for social programs--were the province of a durable but usually besieged minority within the Texas Democratic Party until the mid-1970s.

How did such a situation evolve? Over decades and generations, a single-party system consolidated, feeding (and fed by) the development of a political culture in which many Southerners came to identify so strongly with the Democratic Party that they would not even imagine v****g for a candidate from another party. Even as the national party moved in directions markedly different from the foundations of traditional southern Democrats (like strong advocacy of vigorous enforcement of civil rights), many refused to v**e for Republican candidates. Republicans were still associated with Reconstruction and were identified as a non-southern party.

The term "yellow dog" derives from the saying, "I'd v**e for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket." In the 1928 p**********l e******n campaign, yellow dog Democrats were Alabamans who remained loyal to the party even though they did not like the Democratic candidate, Al Smith. Because the expression came generally to be used to describe loyal Southern Democrats, it also frequently had a somewhat moderate to conservative connotation, as if referring to "old school" Democrats.

Even as yellow dogs were becoming a rare breed, the "dog" moniker got refurbished, though on a smaller scale. After the Republican Party won the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, a group of thirty-three conservative Democrats formed the Blue Dog Coalition. The Blue Dogs represent a stronger break from the national (more liberal) Democratic Party, and could be traced back to Democrats who crossed party lines to support some of Ronald Reagan's policies in the 1980s.

In the 108th Congress (2002-2004), there were thirty-six Blue Dog Democrats, twelve from former Confederate states, counting three from Texas. Another six Blue Dogs represented Virginia, Missouri, Florida, and Kentucky. Befitting a more modern group, they even have a website. Yet old yellow dogs can learn new tricks, too--the official weblog of the Democratic Party is called the Yellow Dog Blog.

Now did you get that? Yellow dogs would v**e only for Democrats and blue dogs were conservative members of the Democrat party who, as Manchin proved, will v**e only for conservative policies!

The US supreme court has rejected a request by Donald Trump to block the release of White House records to the congressional committee investigating the deadly J****** 6 attack on the Capitol, dealing a blow to the former president.

The order, which casts aside Trump’s request to stop the House select committee from obtaining the records while the case makes its way through the courts, means more than 700 documents that could shed light on the attack can be t***sferred to Congress.

The only member of the high court who signaled he would have granted Trump’s request for an injunction was justice Clarence Thomas. The order did not provide a reasoning for turning down the application, which is not uncommon for requests for emergency stays.