theflyingmgoose
Well-known member
"Look Gary! They said we aren't last anymore!"
-Mississippi
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Biaggi’s Second Opium Den
- Thread starter gentleman biaggi
- Start date
-Mississippi
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
nia long as ndcr mariska hargitay and me as the congressman
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
Three Strikes
1945-1949: Henry Wallace (Democratic then Progressive[1])
1949-1953: Robert Taft (Republican)
1948 def. (with Harold Stassen) Richard Russell (Democratic), Henry Wallace (Progressive)
1952 def. (with John Crommelin[2]) Brien McMahon (Democratic), Vito Marcantonio (Progressive)
1953-1961: John Crommelin (Republican)
1956 def. (with Allen Dulles) Adlai Stevenson II (Democratic), Glen Taylor (Progressive)
1961-1969: Alfred Gruenther (Republican)[3]
1960 def. (with Happy Chandler) Jack Kennedy (Democratic), Wayne Morse (Progressive)
1964 def. (with Happy Chandler) Sargent Shriver (Democratic), Eugene McCarthy (Progressive)
1969-1977: Benjamin Spock (Democratic / Progressive)[4]
1968 def. (with Richard Daley) Happy Chandler (Republican), George Lincoln Rockwell (Anti-Communist)
1972 def. (with Wayne Morse) George Romney (Republican - controlled opposition)
[1] Strike One. The 1948 DNC, alternatively described as the “coup of 1948” involved a coalition of urban machines and Southern leadership reflexively removing President Henry Wallace from the Democratic ticket for Southern senator Richard Russell. The move crippled and divided the Democratic party, putting them in the wilderness for decades as the Democratic-Progressive split dominated center-left politics.
[2] Strike Two. The selection of John Crommelin was meant to destroy the Democratic party by giving the Republicans an in-road to the South and making the Progressives (unpopular in the mainstream) the main opposition to the Republicans. Crommelin was a freshman Democratic senator from Alabama, but his loyalty to the party was low, and he split for the Vice Presidency, delivering Taft Alabama and South Carolina as part of his “Southern Strategy”. Upon Taft’s death, he would inherit the presidency, and time in office would be dominated by the “Black Wars”; where the federal government openly warred with African-American “radicals” in the south.
[3] Strike Three. Alfred Gruenther was personally selected by Crommelin as a “safe set of hands” for the United States. Gruenther ended the Black Wars through the gruesome “White Plan” (named after former Mississippi governor Hugh White) to accelerate “separate but equal” doctrine. His administration also led to the formation of the “New Afrika territory”, formed in alliance with the Afro-American United Alliance and their leader, Malcolm X. However, the White Plan was meant to keep populations separate, and, after Gruenther swept his way to re election as a “Peacemaker”, became increasingly unpopular in a north that wanted true equality.
[4] The end of American capitalism and segregation came with the election of Benjamin Spock in 1968. The former New York senator finally united the center-left of the United States, narrowly defeated Happy Chandler and, after the discovery of the reactionary “Generals Plot” to install his Vice President, began the dual “Second Reconstruction” and “Cultural Revolution”, actively warring with the white south and installing new economic policies. Spock would destroy George Romney, his 1972 opponent, who is largely believed to be controlled opposition, and the Republican party with it. However, in Spock’s wake (stepping down in 1976 to respect American tradition), the American electoral system would be split between the Democratic-Progressives (largely left-libertarians in the North and West) and the more authoritarian Occupation party, which was founded by former New Afrika leaders and legions of former northern youth sent to the South to “Occupy and Reconstruct”, who had a much more authoritarian vision of post-Second Reconstruction America…
1945-1949: Henry Wallace (Democratic then Progressive[1])
1949-1953: Robert Taft (Republican)
1948 def. (with Harold Stassen) Richard Russell (Democratic), Henry Wallace (Progressive)
1952 def. (with John Crommelin[2]) Brien McMahon (Democratic), Vito Marcantonio (Progressive)
1953-1961: John Crommelin (Republican)
1956 def. (with Allen Dulles) Adlai Stevenson II (Democratic), Glen Taylor (Progressive)
1961-1969: Alfred Gruenther (Republican)[3]
1960 def. (with Happy Chandler) Jack Kennedy (Democratic), Wayne Morse (Progressive)
1964 def. (with Happy Chandler) Sargent Shriver (Democratic), Eugene McCarthy (Progressive)
1969-1977: Benjamin Spock (Democratic / Progressive)[4]
1968 def. (with Richard Daley) Happy Chandler (Republican), George Lincoln Rockwell (Anti-Communist)
1972 def. (with Wayne Morse) George Romney (Republican - controlled opposition)
[1] Strike One. The 1948 DNC, alternatively described as the “coup of 1948” involved a coalition of urban machines and Southern leadership reflexively removing President Henry Wallace from the Democratic ticket for Southern senator Richard Russell. The move crippled and divided the Democratic party, putting them in the wilderness for decades as the Democratic-Progressive split dominated center-left politics.
[2] Strike Two. The selection of John Crommelin was meant to destroy the Democratic party by giving the Republicans an in-road to the South and making the Progressives (unpopular in the mainstream) the main opposition to the Republicans. Crommelin was a freshman Democratic senator from Alabama, but his loyalty to the party was low, and he split for the Vice Presidency, delivering Taft Alabama and South Carolina as part of his “Southern Strategy”. Upon Taft’s death, he would inherit the presidency, and time in office would be dominated by the “Black Wars”; where the federal government openly warred with African-American “radicals” in the south.
[3] Strike Three. Alfred Gruenther was personally selected by Crommelin as a “safe set of hands” for the United States. Gruenther ended the Black Wars through the gruesome “White Plan” (named after former Mississippi governor Hugh White) to accelerate “separate but equal” doctrine. His administration also led to the formation of the “New Afrika territory”, formed in alliance with the Afro-American United Alliance and their leader, Malcolm X. However, the White Plan was meant to keep populations separate, and, after Gruenther swept his way to re election as a “Peacemaker”, became increasingly unpopular in a north that wanted true equality.
[4] The end of American capitalism and segregation came with the election of Benjamin Spock in 1968. The former New York senator finally united the center-left of the United States, narrowly defeated Happy Chandler and, after the discovery of the reactionary “Generals Plot” to install his Vice President, began the dual “Second Reconstruction” and “Cultural Revolution”, actively warring with the white south and installing new economic policies. Spock would destroy George Romney, his 1972 opponent, who is largely believed to be controlled opposition, and the Republican party with it. However, in Spock’s wake (stepping down in 1976 to respect American tradition), the American electoral system would be split between the Democratic-Progressives (largely left-libertarians in the North and West) and the more authoritarian Occupation party, which was founded by former New Afrika leaders and legions of former northern youth sent to the South to “Occupy and Reconstruct”, who had a much more authoritarian vision of post-Second Reconstruction America…
theflyingmgoose
Well-known member
I'd commit voter fraud for this party.
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
betraying the new south is crazy
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
You wanna live under the Black Sun? You’re living under it. It’s in Nike Techs, convenient stores you use for flicks, puff bars, Babytron, Future, SNKRS, AAU 15u burnouts, grinches, Instagram, Lavar Ball, Ice Spice, white guys with fades - the Nazis won white man, and all you got out of it was this cheap plastic crap!
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
Fear, Loathing, and the Quiet Coup(s) of 1972:
1973-1977: Henry M. Jackson / Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
1977-1985: Henry Grover / Thomas Moorer (Republican)
1985-1989: Gar Alperovitz / Ron Daniels (Economic Democracy)
1989-1997[4]: Samuel Hayakawa / John Tanton (Democratic)
[1] The four-man election of 1972 began and ended with quite the bang. The 1972 DNC’s overthrow of George McGovern after Hubert Humphrey’s shock death and George Wallace’s assassination attempt was only the third-most interesting part of the race. Wallace rising from the ashes after being paralyzed and re-entering the race in September would only be the second most interesting, with an angered and bitter Wallace hitting the stump. No, instead the Nixon campaign’s complete collapse, brought on by the revelation of his Vice President’s corruption, would be the story of the race. Despite a desperate attempt to revive the campaign with former shooting victim John Connally replacing Agnew, it was all for naught. Years later it would be revealed that the release of the “Maryland Papers” was indeed part of a bigger attack on Nixon, one coming from hawks within the security state who preferred Scoop Jackson’s militarism to Nixon’s détente.
[2] THE NEW CAMPAIGN TRAIL? (October, 1980):
As America quickly abandons its once gridlocked two-party system, a collection of new "third parties" are beginning to eat into the major parties vote share. Indeed, the most political parties are represented in the House of Representatives in American history. Democrats, Republicans, the Economic Democracy party, Libertarians, Christian Values "Jesus Freaks", La Raza Unida, the remaining two American party members, and one Socialist Labor member make up the most ideologically diverse congress in years. However, all of these parties, with the exception of the Christian Values party (which holds 3 Southern congressional seats - two in the former Confederacy, one in West Virginia), are running singular candidates for president. However, the Christian Values party is changing the narrative. Instead of one singular presidential candidate, they're running one per state - almost all of them Evangelical or Baptist preachers who are locally popular and well-known. Richard Viguerie, the singular vice presidential candidate of the party, and a pioneer in political direct mail says the reasoning behind such a decision is simple - with a variety of popular local candidates, the new party can expand its popularity, and grow into areas that may not have previously been habitable for such a party. While building such support, the new party can win states, which in an electoral college system, could give them extreme bargaining power if the election was "split" and no candidate got more than 270 electoral votes.
[3] Economic Democracy's rapid rise to the presidency only a few years after its formation came at the hands of Gar Alperovitz, a former Democratic party aide-turned-senator, who would split and join Fred Harris's project. Alperovitz campaigned on a more equal economic system in America, something increasingly popular after eight years of "Grovernomics", and an end to the war in Uganda, criticizing the United States' military support of Idi Amin. His narrow victory was almost entirely based in the midwest, where deindustrialization and the farm crisis gave voters a reason to back the senator. Elected on a wave of incredible hype, the Economic Democracy party's small congressional profile, only holding 7 senate seats, caused the Alperovitz administration to be quite the disappointment, as Alperovitz struggled to work with a congress almost uniformly against him, and after struggling to fix many of the problems he saw in America and faced with plummeting approval, Alperovitz wouldn't even run for re-election, and his party would finish third in the general.
[4] Hayakawa and Hate: The First Asian President and the Normalization of Racial Anger in the United States - Akeem Dunbar, 2005: 83 years old, Canadian, Asian, and seemingly chosen out of a hat, Samuel Hayakawa was shockingly nominated by Democrats in 1988, and even more shockingly, he won. His election was, much like Alperovitz's, a watershed moment for Americans, who were proud that they elected themselves a diverse and progressive president. However, much like Alperovitz, Hayakawa would disappoint many. Serving until he was NINETY-ONE, one would expect some slight conservative or dated views to come out of Hayakawa's mouth, but his anti-immigrant rhetoric was almost constant. He frequently called for decreases of immigration to the United States, passed an "all-English" amendment, and despite being of Japanese descent, described the US interment of Japanese-Americans as "beneficial".
[5] "The Libertarian movement, once confined to a few noble men in the western United States, has finally risen to the top of the American political system! No longer will the people of the United States be forced to accept government tyranny! No longer will tinpot dictators mutilate and belittle immigrants begging to live the American way of life! A revolution is upon us!"
-Excerpt from conservative commentator and former Auburn University running back Bruce Oakley's "deliriously happy" speech after the 1996 RNC.
1973-1977: Henry M. Jackson / Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
1972 def.[1] Richard Nixon / John Connally (Republican), George Wallace / John Schmitz (American), Gene McCarthy / Benjamin Spock (New)
1977-1985: Henry Grover / Thomas Moorer (Republican)
1976 def. Henry M. Jackson / Jimmy Carter (Democratic), Fred Harris / Ron Dellums (Economic Democracy / New), John Rarick / Lester Maddox (American)
1980 def. [2] John Culver / Scott Matheson (Democratic), Fred Harris / Jesse Jackson (Economic Democracy), Ed Clark / David Koch (Libertarian), various / Richard Viguerie (Christian Values)
1980 def. [2] John Culver / Scott Matheson (Democratic), Fred Harris / Jesse Jackson (Economic Democracy), Ed Clark / David Koch (Libertarian), various / Richard Viguerie (Christian Values)
1985-1989: Gar Alperovitz / Ron Daniels (Economic Democracy)
1984 def. [3] Thomas Moorer / Paul Laxalt (Republican), Donald Stewart / Hugh Carey (Democratic), Gene Burns / Kent Cromwell (Libertarian), various / Jerry Falwell (Christian Values)
1989-1997[4]: Samuel Hayakawa / John Tanton (Democratic)
1988 def. Bob Dole / John Peavey (Republican), Ron Daniels / Walt Brown (Economic Democracy), Ron Paul / Dick Randolph (Libertarian / Free Christian Values)
1992 def. Donald Kendall / John McCain (Republican), Ralph Nader / John Hightower (Economic Democracy)
1997-2005: David Stockman / Antonin Scalia (Republican)1992 def. Donald Kendall / John McCain (Republican), Ralph Nader / John Hightower (Economic Democracy)
1996 def. [5] John Tanton / Dick Lamm (Democratic backed by National Economic Democracy)
2000 def. Sharon Belton / Jim Hodges (Democratic)
2000 def. Sharon Belton / Jim Hodges (Democratic)
[1] The four-man election of 1972 began and ended with quite the bang. The 1972 DNC’s overthrow of George McGovern after Hubert Humphrey’s shock death and George Wallace’s assassination attempt was only the third-most interesting part of the race. Wallace rising from the ashes after being paralyzed and re-entering the race in September would only be the second most interesting, with an angered and bitter Wallace hitting the stump. No, instead the Nixon campaign’s complete collapse, brought on by the revelation of his Vice President’s corruption, would be the story of the race. Despite a desperate attempt to revive the campaign with former shooting victim John Connally replacing Agnew, it was all for naught. Years later it would be revealed that the release of the “Maryland Papers” was indeed part of a bigger attack on Nixon, one coming from hawks within the security state who preferred Scoop Jackson’s militarism to Nixon’s détente.
[2] THE NEW CAMPAIGN TRAIL? (October, 1980):
As America quickly abandons its once gridlocked two-party system, a collection of new "third parties" are beginning to eat into the major parties vote share. Indeed, the most political parties are represented in the House of Representatives in American history. Democrats, Republicans, the Economic Democracy party, Libertarians, Christian Values "Jesus Freaks", La Raza Unida, the remaining two American party members, and one Socialist Labor member make up the most ideologically diverse congress in years. However, all of these parties, with the exception of the Christian Values party (which holds 3 Southern congressional seats - two in the former Confederacy, one in West Virginia), are running singular candidates for president. However, the Christian Values party is changing the narrative. Instead of one singular presidential candidate, they're running one per state - almost all of them Evangelical or Baptist preachers who are locally popular and well-known. Richard Viguerie, the singular vice presidential candidate of the party, and a pioneer in political direct mail says the reasoning behind such a decision is simple - with a variety of popular local candidates, the new party can expand its popularity, and grow into areas that may not have previously been habitable for such a party. While building such support, the new party can win states, which in an electoral college system, could give them extreme bargaining power if the election was "split" and no candidate got more than 270 electoral votes.
[3] Economic Democracy's rapid rise to the presidency only a few years after its formation came at the hands of Gar Alperovitz, a former Democratic party aide-turned-senator, who would split and join Fred Harris's project. Alperovitz campaigned on a more equal economic system in America, something increasingly popular after eight years of "Grovernomics", and an end to the war in Uganda, criticizing the United States' military support of Idi Amin. His narrow victory was almost entirely based in the midwest, where deindustrialization and the farm crisis gave voters a reason to back the senator. Elected on a wave of incredible hype, the Economic Democracy party's small congressional profile, only holding 7 senate seats, caused the Alperovitz administration to be quite the disappointment, as Alperovitz struggled to work with a congress almost uniformly against him, and after struggling to fix many of the problems he saw in America and faced with plummeting approval, Alperovitz wouldn't even run for re-election, and his party would finish third in the general.
[4] Hayakawa and Hate: The First Asian President and the Normalization of Racial Anger in the United States - Akeem Dunbar, 2005: 83 years old, Canadian, Asian, and seemingly chosen out of a hat, Samuel Hayakawa was shockingly nominated by Democrats in 1988, and even more shockingly, he won. His election was, much like Alperovitz's, a watershed moment for Americans, who were proud that they elected themselves a diverse and progressive president. However, much like Alperovitz, Hayakawa would disappoint many. Serving until he was NINETY-ONE, one would expect some slight conservative or dated views to come out of Hayakawa's mouth, but his anti-immigrant rhetoric was almost constant. He frequently called for decreases of immigration to the United States, passed an "all-English" amendment, and despite being of Japanese descent, described the US interment of Japanese-Americans as "beneficial".
[5] "The Libertarian movement, once confined to a few noble men in the western United States, has finally risen to the top of the American political system! No longer will the people of the United States be forced to accept government tyranny! No longer will tinpot dictators mutilate and belittle immigrants begging to live the American way of life! A revolution is upon us!"
-Excerpt from conservative commentator and former Auburn University running back Bruce Oakley's "deliriously happy" speech after the 1996 RNC.
Last edited:
AnActualFam
Well-known member
- Location
- Somewhere at Sea
- Pronouns
- He/They
Someone else did a President Gar list, crying right now.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
i love using him because when he was at his peak everyone just described him as a boring droning speaker lol
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
i have no idea what the full list was here but i think it was something along the lines of
1969-1971: Charles Percy / John Lindsay (Republican)
1971-1973: Charles Percy / John Lindsay (Republican / Democratic)
1968 def. James Gavin / John Connally (Democratic), George Wallace / Curtis LeMay (American)
1973-1977: Charles Percy / John Tower (Republican)
1972 def. John Lindsay / Edwin Edwards (Democratic)
1977-1981: Russell Long / Mark Hogan (Democratic)
1976 def. John Tower / Lowell Weicker (Republican), Wendell Berry / Mike Gravel (Alternative)
1981-1982: Gary Hart / Frank Borman (Democratic / Republican)
1980 def. Gary Hart / Donald Fraser (Democratic), Buddy Cianci / Frank Borman (Republican), Gary Hart / Ralph Nader (Alternative)
1982-1985: Gary Hart / Frank Borman (American Solidarity / Republican)
1985-1989: Gary Hart / Al Gore (American Solidarity)
1984 def. (2nd Round) Mark Hatfield / James Earl Carter (Truth and Liberty)
1989-1993: Paul Tsongas / Ross Perot (American Solidarity)
1988 def. (2nd Round) Lavaughan Booth / James Skillen (Truth and Liberty)
1993-0000: Glen Stassen / Howard Ahmanson (Truth and Liberty)
1992 def. (2nd Round) Paul Tsongas / Ross Perot (American Solidarity)
1996 def. (No 2nd Round needed) Jerry Brown / John Kitzhaber (American Solidarity)
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
James J. Gaffney III - Wikipedia
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
alt tl where orval faubus somehow beats clinton in the 86 dem primary
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
.
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
god barry goldwater would’ve been so annoying guy today
Walpurgisnacht
It was in the Year of Maximum Danger
- Location
- Banned from the forum
- Pronouns
- He/Him
10000 thinkpieces about how This NeverTrump Arizonan Could Be The Future of the Democrats before he suggests nuking Beijing live on CNN and everyone abruptly drops him.
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
thinking about eric adams potentially stopping the nearly 225 year democratic coalition including immigrants (excluding the wjb years) and getting so mad i start punching my 10yo cousin
- Pronouns
- he/they is fine
the fact that democrats haven’t even attempted literally just doing the great replacement in the south is why they’ll never truly be successful
1) immigrants generally vote democratic (duh)
2) southern whites are already extremely racially polarized and the ones who aren’t are probably the strongest liberals on earth so there’s no electoral negatives to racial strife
3) northerners generally view the south as backwards and racist (correct) so any racial strife will just be seen as “oh those southern assholes are acting up again”
4) it would significantly boost urban centers (which also vote democratic)
5) there’s no unions in the south so it wouldn’t really matter
6) immigration is cool
i really don’t see a downside here
1) immigrants generally vote democratic (duh)
2) southern whites are already extremely racially polarized and the ones who aren’t are probably the strongest liberals on earth so there’s no electoral negatives to racial strife
3) northerners generally view the south as backwards and racist (correct) so any racial strife will just be seen as “oh those southern assholes are acting up again”
4) it would significantly boost urban centers (which also vote democratic)
5) there’s no unions in the south so it wouldn’t really matter
6) immigration is cool
i really don’t see a downside here
Comrade Izaac
Secretary General of the Alt-Historians Union
- Pronouns
- They/Them
the only issue i can see with doing this is that a large reason why the South is conservative outside of insane racial polarization (although like u commented on, Deep South white liberals essentially have the same program as Maoists) is how insanely religious, usually some variation of Christian, literally every demographic in the South is. i don't see that changing even with a deliberate attempt to diversify the South, especially given that much of the land that would be a. available and b. affordable for any new locals will be concentrated in Rural Areas and most new transplants would likely succumb to the matieral structures of the area, becoming vastly more religious and in turn socially conservative at the very least over time.
a big reason why the Midwest, despite having similar demographics and political geography to many Southern States, is vastly more favorable to labor-liberalism than it should be is because of its noticably irreligious populations. that and it's historically unionized economy.
any attempt to change this in the South would require the Democrats to break fundamental structural principles that they have shown themselves completely unwilling to break.
Luke_Starkiller
Well-known member
I think you’re misunderstanding the Midwest’s demographics a little bit. There are plenty of devout Christians across the Midwest, but they’re usually the Social Gospel Protestant variety or descendants of (often Eastern) European Catholics. They’re less batshit insane than the Southern evangelicals, and while the younger midwesterners are getting less religious, the older contingent only looks irreligious in comparison because of the sheer wackiness of their Southern counterparts.
Also, one of the big reasons the South isn’t germane to organized labor is because the main political thread espoused by the wealthy and powerful from colonial times till now is ensuring a large supply of cheap labor. This isn’t a class reductionist thing either; they saw the black man’s labor as worth less than the white man’s because they were racist. Hence slavery.
The reasons the midwest was a better place for organizing than the south were 1) the midwestern immigrant population’s solidarity-oriented cultural mores 2) the poor white population in the South was far more involved in smaller-scale agriculture than industrial work 3) the southern elite used racialized lawmaking to keep black people down and poorer white people from commiserating with a black population that shared their economic interests and 4) those racist laws were less prominent and/or phased out earlier in the Midwest than in the South, allowing for a (tenuous) coalition between poor whites and blacks in industrial workplaces.