Chit-Chat: The Feels

[Milk-Eyed Mender]

30 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

What they really want is an olicharchy.  They are just using christofacism as a way to get that.

Fair enough and of no comfort at all. 

[Dimity]

1 hour ago, lookeyloo said:

I am too old to have gotten a lot of vaccines but do remember the polio shot and the pink drop in a sugar cube I got at around 21. My children and grandchildren have gotten all recommended vaccines. Even "the jab". 

And this is a point that idiots like MTG and RFK Jr. ignore.  Illnesses like the measles don't just affect children.  Even if it were true that it's a mild disease and something that kids will shake off in a few days (it's not but these details never affect them) it's also true that so called childhood diseases in adults can be devastating.  Many adult over a certain age are very unlikely to have been vaccinated.  I guess this will be just another Covid thing where the Republicans will see this as a way to 'thin the herd'. 

[Dimity]

Among many reasons why it's easy to see why Musk and Trump are best buds, it is increasingly clear that Musk is as big a liar as Trump is (shocking I know!):

South Africa rejects Musk claim Starlink can't operate there because he's not Black

South Africa on Friday rejected a claim by multibillionaire Elon Musk that his Starlink satellite company could not operate in the country because he is not Black, and its telecoms regulator said Starlink had not applied for a licence.

In his latest rebuke of the country where he was born and went to school, Musk wrote on X, which he also owns: "Starlink is not allowed to operate in South Africa, because I'm not black".

Clayson Monyela, a senior official at the foreign affairs department, responded emphatically on the social media platform.

"Sir, that's NOT true & you know it! It's got nothing to do with your skin colour. Starlink is welcome to operate in South Africa provided there's compliance with local laws," Monyela wrote. "This is a global international trade & investment principle."

[supposebly]

I had the measles in Germany mid-late 1970s when there wasn't a vaccine yet. Me and half of my 2nd grade. I remember being sick for about 2 weeks, infecting my little siblings who were 1 and 1.5 years old (my 1.5 year old brother almost died because he had such a high fever for so long).

During those 2 weeks, my friend brought me homework and then the other half of second grade in my small town school got sick, and it was our turn to bring them homework. I don't remember if it spread through the whole school but all things considered, I'd be surprised if it hadn't. 

A year before that, I almost killed my little brother when he was less than 6 months old, when I got the mumps and infected my mother and him. He always got such high fevers when he got sick with anything.

Luckily, I had chicken pox before my siblings were born.

Again, no vaccines for this stuff back then, so no choice but to hope for the best.

So, yes, we had a measles party. And a mumps party. Unintentionally. Parents who think it's a good idea to play with their children's health that way deserve what's coming. Unfortunately, their children don't. But then, a lot of people are just not qualified to raise children.

This is not new. Current parents just need to listen to their elders who might have been around during the times when there were no vaccines.

Edited 19 hours ago by supposebly

[tres bien]

Also worth noting that the democrats elected two black female senators in 2024

True or not I’m convinced if you’re MAGA nothing matters everything is acceptable. See Lauren Bobert 

Edited 16 hours ago by tres bien

[Yeah No]

8 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

They might also consider the most qualified.

I don't know if a lot of otherwise non-racist Republicans realize that arguments like this are used by the racists among them (i.e. Trump himself) to hide their racism behind the guise of "fairness" and "colorblindness". I mean, who doesn't want things to be fair and candidates to be qualified, right? But in reality they're using this argument to make non-racist white Republicans think that Democrats are the "unfair" ones for nominating "unqualified" black people "just because they're black", when meanwhile that's not even the case. What better way for them to make white people think they have a grievance over Democrats not being "fair" to them? This is one of the reasons my husband backed away from the Republican party. He felt duped and used by stuff like this.

And once again this is another example of how everything Republicans try to pin on Democrats is really true of themselves. They try to act like Democrats are the "real" racists and favor non-whites meanwhile they are hiding their own racism toward non-whites in the process! 

[bluegirl147]

 

 

5 minutes ago, supposebly said:

 

So, yes, we had a measles party. And a mumps party. Unintentionally. Parents who think it's a good idea to play with their children's health that way deserve what's coming. Unfortunately, their children don't. But then, a lot of people are just not qualified to raise children.

This not new. Current parents just need to listen to their elders who might have been around during the times when there were no vaccines.

 

Whenever I hear about measles parties or back in the chicken pox parties I always think did anyone ask the kids if they want to go.  Sorry not sorry but exposing your children to an infectious disease is not good parenting IMO.

 

 

[ProudMary]

9 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I know I've pointed this out a few times already but let's not forget that Hillary Clinton technically won the popular vote in 2016 by almost 3 million votes so that may not be entirely true.

Correct. Her electoral college loss was caused by a ~70,000 vote defecit across three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. 

Remember that litany of Republican voter suppression methods I posted upthread? Yeah, there was another huge one: Cambridge Analytica--The Mercers, Jared Kushner and Facebook. This is where Big Data came in, not to mention using the same methods in the UK, insuring a win for Brexit just a few months later. In the US, using CA's stolen data info, the RNC was able to pinpoint mainly Black male voters and bombard them on their individual FB pages with anti-Clinton propaganda. They had this targeted down to specific streets in specific districts in urban areas in MI, WI and PA. 

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

 

And once again this is another example of how everything Republicans try to pin on Democrats is really true of themselves. They try to act like Democrats are the "real" racists and favor non-whites meanwhile they are hiding their own racism toward non-whites in the process! 

I only need to read the comments on my local news channel's FB to know the Republicans in my area suffer from projection. Everything and I do mean everything they say about Democrats is true of Republicans.  They think Democrats have suppressed the vote.  They think Democrats want a civil war.  And when inflation skyrockets they will blame Democrats.

[tres bien]

It’s more than the racism with MAGA. I don’t see why all of that’s not true of the LGBTQ community too

It’s ok to identify as transgender if you’re a MAGA. See Caitlyn Jenner

Edited 19 hours ago by tres bien

[bluegirl147]

3 minutes ago, ProudMary said:

 

Remember that litany of Republican voter suppression methods I posted upthread? Yeah, there was another huge one: Cambridge Analytica--The Mercers, Jared Kushner and Facebook. This is where Big Data came in, not to mention using the same methods in the UK, insuring a win for Brexit just a few months later. In the US, using CA's stolen data info, the RNC was able to pinpoint mainly Black male voters and bombard them on their individual FB pages with anti-Clinton propaganda. They had this targeted down to specific streets in specific districts in urban areas in MI, WI and PA. 

Isn't it ironic that the party who is anti science and anti intellect has profited so much from science and intellect?

3 minutes ago, tres bien said:

It’s more than the racism with MAGA. I don’t see why all of that’s not true of the LGBTQ community too

It’s ok to identify as transgender if you’re a MAGA. See Caitlyn Jenner

That is because Jenner still thinks like a rich white man.  She is still a Republican. If she had switched parties and came out in support of Kamala Harris she would be shunned by Republicans.

[Avaleigh]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

I think what Soapy and some other Republicans object to is thinking that Democrats nominate someone black just because they're black and their qualifications are secondary. But that's overwhelmingly not the case if you really look at the person's qualifications, and where Wes Moore is concerned that should be more than obvious. It's sad that we even have to think twice before nominating a black person. It should happen anyway. But for now it probably has to be a conscious choice to do so otherwise it wouldn't happen even when it should. And that fact doesn't automatically mean that they aren't more than qualified for the job. 

And besides, how many white people have been nominated and WON elections that weren't "the most qualified" candidate? Since when should that even matter to Republicans when Trump can get elected. If his "qualifications" mattered to those who voted for him, he never would have been elected!

Yeah, "most qualified" arguments don't seem to come into the conversation from right wing supporters when it's people like Trump, Cavanagh, Hegseth, etc. I wonder why?

Regarding your first point, from a basic fairness perspective, it seems like it's a mistake to make a declaration that you want to appoint/nominate the first [fill in the blank minority] candidate for whichever position. If you acknowledge that you aren't even going to consider other candidates, including other minorities, then there's no way of knowing whether or not you'll choose the "most qualified" candidate. You'll get a qualified candidate, yes, but to get the "most qualified" you will only know if the search is open to every qualified candidate.

It's better to acknowledge that you'll consider everyone who could do the job and then consider the diversity part. At the end of the day, there are so many marginalized groups that it won't be difficult to meet DEI goals without having to declare that other marginalized groups aren't even in the race because the decider feels for whatever reason that it wants to focus on one particular group. You can be fair and still make history. JMO.

[Dimity]

39 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

And once again this is another example of how everything Republicans try to pin on Democrats is really true of themselves. They try to act like Democrats are the "real" racists and favor non-whites meanwhile they are hiding their own racism toward non-whites in the process! 

Look no further than the richest man in the world lying about being discriminated against with regard to Starlink and South Africa.  Republicans are so desperate to portray themselves as the victims - even when it is so demonstrably false.  And meanwhile the MAGA and the Church of Perpetual Grievance eat it up.

[ProudMary]

This sums it up nicely.

 

[bluegirl147]

With this country so divided we aren't really choosing people that are the most qualified.  We are choosing who we think can win.  

[Dimity]

Who is Charles Barkley and why does he think Canadians give a damn what he thinks?

[tres bien]

59 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

Isn't it ironic that the party who is anti science and anti intellect has profited so much from science and intellect?

That is because Jenner still thinks like a rich white man.  She is still a Republican. If she had switched parties and came out in support of Kamala Harris she would be shunned by Republicans.

Hence my point. If you’re a MAGA 👍

If you’re not FU

Edited 18 hours ago by tres bien

[tearknee]

3 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

And a Republican winning multiple sparsely populated states doesn't hobble their victory as illegitimate?  Take away the electoral college and it's one person one vote right?  So why should Californians votes not matter as much?

forcing a candidate to rely on more than just a handful of states, whatever bottle label they have, is actually a good thing.

39 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

With this country so divided we aren't really choosing people that are the most qualified.  We are choosing who we think can win.  

That's always been true. It's only on The West Wing that former governors from places like New Hampshire and Vemont can become president.

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

 

 

 

Whenever I hear about measles parties or back in the chicken pox parties I always think did anyone ask the kids if they want to go.  Sorry not sorry but exposing your children to an infectious disease is not good parenting IMO.

 

 

many parents still see their children as like property, IMO.

[bluegirl147]

34 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Who is Charles Barkley and why does he think Canadians give a damn what he thinks?

He is a former NBA player.  He has always been outspoken.  He was a Republican till "they lost their minds" and  became an Independent.  He doesn't like either party now. Every once in awhile he says something worth hearing but most of what he says whether intentional or not causes people to say did he just say that.

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

He is a former NBA player.  He has always been outspoken.  He was a Republican till "they lost their minds" and  became an Independent.  He doesn't like either party now. Every once in awhile he says something worth hearing but most of what he says whether intentional or not causes people to say did he just say that.

And he's also chosen to play the buffoon when it comes to his public persona. So it's hard to take him seriously when he talks about politics.

[Sharla]

11 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I'm pretty sure I had the measles when I was a kid but I'm not sure when or which kind or if I was vaccinated against it. I think I was but I'm not 100% sure, that was a long time ago and my parents are gone so there's no one to ask. And I'm just about on the edge according to the CDC - They say that people born before 1957 are presumed to have had the measles and thus natural immunity. I was born in 1958. But if you never had the measles you might need to get another shot if you got yours before 1968. I don't remember and I don't think I still have any records on this. I found a form online I can send to New York City to see if they have any of my immunization records but I hate that I have to worry about this now too!

You could ask your PCP about it.  They have three options: 1) it isn't really a worry, 2) they can order an immunity titer blood test, 3) give you an MMR series.  

[Makai]

13 hours ago, ProudMary said:

 

I can recall Chicken pox parties once being a thing before that vaccine went into distribution around 1995, but measles parties? Hell no. That should be criminal.

 

But that episode of the Brady Bunch where they all and it so clearly it is totally normal. Yes, that actually is one of their arguments. 

50 minutes ago, tearknee said:

forcing a candidate to rely on more than just a handful of states, whatever bottle label they have, is actually a good thing.

I agree which is why the Electoral College needs to end or be significantly modified. I know that’s not the point you were making but the reality is that candidates now rely on only a handful of states. Too many people in this country feel their vote does not matter because of the EC. 

[partofme]

2 hours ago, tres bien said:

It’s ok to identify as transgender if you’re a MAGA. See Caitlyn Jenner

I’ve seen no evidence that Republicans actually accept her though. She votes for a party that hates her. 

[Makai]

When my parents gave me my birth certificate and social security card, they also gave me my immunization record that had been needed anytime I started a new school. It seemed pointless to me at the time but, for some reason, I have kept that thing for 20 years constantly questioning what use it was. Looks like I finally got my answer. 

12 minutes ago, partofme said:

I’ve seen no evidence that Republicans actually accept her though. She votes for a party that hates her. 

They use her for DEI purposes. They can pretend to not be hateful because they “accept” that one trans person who is “one of the good ones”. 

[ProudMary]

3 hours ago, ProudMary said:

Remember that litany of Republican voter suppression methods I posted upthread? Yeah, there was another huge one: Cambridge Analytica--The Mercers, Jared Kushner and Facebook.

I care about listing source material as much as possible, so I'm quoting myself here just to say that the info I mentioned upthread is all outlined in an excellent Netflix documentary from 2019, The Great Hack. If you missed it when it was originally released, it's definitely worth a watch. I just checked and its still avalable to stream.

Edited to add: The film's trailer is at the link below.

The Great Hack

Explore how a data company named Cambridge Analytica came to symbolize the dark side of social media in the wake of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

This provocative documentary was nominated for an Emmy for Best Documentary Special.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80117542?preventIntent=true

Edited 16 hours ago by ProudMary

[bluegirl147]

53 minutes ago, Makai said:

Without 

I agree which is why the Electoral College needs to end or be significantly modified. I know that’s not the point you were making but the reality is that candidates now rely on only a handful of states. Too many people in this country feel their vote does not matter because of the EC. 

Without the EC presidential candidates would have to campaign in every state.  That would improve voter turnout. Not to mention it would spread the wealth around.   Millions are spent in swing states. 

[tearknee]

43 minutes ago, Makai said:

When my parents gave me my birth certificate and social security card, they also gave me my immunization record that had been needed anytime I started a new school. It seemed pointless to me at the time but, for some reason, I have kept that thing for 20 years constantly questioning what use it was. Looks like I finally got my answer. 

They use her for DEI purposes. They can pretend to not be hateful because they “accept” that one trans person who is “one of the good ones”. 

See also: our friends on the left praising the [long-gone] Rockefeller Republicans and, in the UK, the One Nation Torys.

Edited 16 hours ago by tearknee

[ProudMary]

26 minutes ago, Milk-Eyed Mender said:

"Say thank you" seems to be the new "Merry Christmas."

Regarding Rubio's comment that "Russians would be on the border with Poland." 

Poland announces military training plan for all men

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy83r93l208o

Edited 15 hours ago by ProudMary

[tres bien]

I’m increasingly sick when I read this

The newly appointed chairman of the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts (Trump) has now completed filling the 33 member board of trustees when he named Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo this past week to usher in America’s Golden Age 

They join Second Lady Usha Vance, WH Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her mom Cheri Summerall, WH deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, country singer Lee Greenwood, Melania Trump, WH advisor Pamala Gross and spouses of his mega donors and business allies

Trump said he’d never been there. But no more woke!

😡

[bluegirl147]

4 minutes ago, tres bien said:

I’m increasingly sick when I read this

The newly appointed chairman of the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts (Trump) has now completed filling the 33 member board of trustees when he named Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo this past week to usher in America’s Golden Age 

They join Second Lady Usha Vance, WH Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and her mom Cheri Summerall, WH deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, country singer Lee Greenwood, Melania Trump, WH advisor Pamala Gross and spouses of his mega donors and business allies

Trump said he’d never been there. But no more woke!

😡

So let me guess.  Only Trump supporters will be allowed to perform there.  So Kid Rock.  Ted Nugent.  Maybe Scott Baio will do a dramatic reading.

[PRgal]

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I don't know if a lot of otherwise non-racist Republicans realize that arguments like this are used by the racists among them (i.e. Trump himself) to hide their racism behind the guise of "fairness" and "colorblindness". I mean, who doesn't want things to be fair and candidates to be qualified, right? But in reality they're using this argument to make non-racist white Republicans think that Democrats are the "unfair" ones for nominating "unqualified" black people "just because they're black", when meanwhile that's not even the case. What better way for them to make white people think they have a grievance over Democrats not being "fair" to them? This is one of the reasons my husband backed away from the Republican party. He felt duped and used by stuff like this.

And once again this is another example of how everything Republicans try to pin on Democrats is really true of themselves. They try to act like Democrats are the "real" racists and favor non-whites meanwhile they are hiding their own racism toward non-whites in the process! 

If you're talking about education, then it's not about non-Whites, but anyone in so-called "underserved groups."  This apparently does NOT include Asians.  Think the Harvard case.  And yeah, race-blind/colour-blind admissions where every applicant is given a number, and the admissions people are basing everything on test scores, GPA and other things, that's a good thing.  If most of the kids who get in are either White or Asian?  What that shows is that there are OTHER issues going on in some communities.  And it also gives a chance to lower income White and Asian families.  Somehow, society itself thinks these communities are all middle class, which is not true.

 

p.s. what's the deal with Charles Barkley and Canada?

[tearknee]

Putin seems to think 1795 was the correct decision 

5 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

So let me guess.  Only Trump supporters will be allowed to perform there.  So Kid Rock.  Ted Nugent.  Maybe Scott Baio will do a dramatic reading.

and he'll give us all pink eye...

[Makai]

28 minutes ago, tearknee said:

See also: our friends on the left praising the [long-gone] Rockefeller Republicans…

I have literally never heard anyone on the left praise the Rockefeller Republicans (or mention the Rockefeller Republicans at all). 

I’m confused, are you comparing Democrats praising moderate republicans of the past to Republicans including Jenner in things while attacking all other trans people?

6 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

So let me guess.  Only Trump supporters will be allowed to perform there.  So Kid Rock.  Ted Nugent.  Maybe Scott Baio will do a dramatic reading.

Probably but that’s more because only Trump supporters will agree to be there. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Makai

[tearknee]

I’m confused, are you comparing Democrats praising moderate republicans of the past to Republicans including Jenner in things while attacking all other trans people?

Yes.

[Makai]

20 minutes ago, PRgal said:

If you're talking about education, then it's not about non-Whites, but anyone in so-called "underserved groups."  This apparently does NOT include Asians.  Think the Harvard case.  And yeah, race-blind/colour-blind admissions where every applicant is given a number, and the admissions people are basing everything on test scores, GPA and other things, that's a good thing.  If most of the kids who get in are either White or Asian?  What that shows is that there are OTHER issues going on in some communities.  And it also gives a chance to lower income White and Asian families.  Somehow, society itself thinks these communities are all middle class, which is not true.

The same group that sued Harvard and ended affirmative action in college admissions is now considering suing because Asian admissions have actually dropped at some top schools since they won. So….

 

15 minutes ago, tearknee said:

I’m confused, are you comparing Democrats praising moderate republicans of the past to Republicans including Jenner in things while attacking all other trans people?

Yes.

How are those the same thing? I honestly don’t see any parallels. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Makai

[ProudMary]

15 minutes ago, PRgal said:

p.s. what's the deal with Charles Barkley and Canada?

Already asked and answered. Scroll up.

[Avaleigh]

34 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

So let me guess.  Only Trump supporters will be allowed to perform there.  So Kid Rock.  Ted Nugent.  Maybe Scott Baio will do a dramatic reading.

Kevin Sorbo and Kelsey Grammer are hurt that you forgot about them.

[Dimity]

5 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Kevin Sorbo and Kelsey Grammer are hurt that you forgot about them.

What about Snoop Dogg? Is he still singing Trump's praises?

37 minutes ago, Makai said:

I have literally never heard anyone on the left praise the Rockefeller Republicans (or mention the Rockefeller Republicans at all). 

I'd have to google to find out what this even means.  Definitely not a term I've heard bandied about.

[fairffaxx]

Nelson Rockefeller was Ford's VP & was a moderate, well-educated, old money Republican.  

[bluegirl147]

12 minutes ago, Dimity said:

What about Snoop Dogg? Is he still singing Trump's praises?

I'd have to google to find out what this even means.  Definitely not a term I've heard bandied about.

Economically conservative and socially liberal.

[kittykat]

52 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

So let me guess.  Only Trump supporters will be allowed to perform there.  So Kid Rock.  Ted Nugent.  Maybe Scott Baio will do a dramatic reading.

A Bob Loblaw law bomb!

 

17 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

Kevin Sorbo and Kelsey Grammer are hurt that you forgot about them.

Kevin Sorbo has been butthurt since Xena overtook him on the ratings.

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Without the EC presidential candidates would have to campaign in every state.  That would improve voter turnout. Not to mention it would spread the wealth around.   Millions are spent in swing states. 

Absolutely.  I'm so sick of the "but if we abandon the EC only CA and NY will control policy."

First of all even if the Most Populous States Control Policy were true.  The 2nd and 3rd most populous states are Texas and Florida, which are firmly red.  New York is number 4.

As stated above it makes candidates go to all the states.  How many voters have stayed home because they feel like they're not heard.  It doesn't excuse them from not voting but they're also right that they are not being heard if they don't live in a swing state.  It's more wasteful for the candidates to have to spend 75-80% of their time in swing states.  Of course people aren't being heard with that strategy.

As people have mentioned Hillary Clinton lost the electoral vote buy about 70k.  Once again, thanks to our favorite killjoy Jill Stein.  I know Gary Johnson lent an assist on that one too.  The whole popular vote not matching the electoral is just maddening.

And to the Rutherford Hayes reference, he only won because he promised to withdraw Northern troops from the South thus ending Reconstruction and ushering the era of Jim Crow. Nice legacy buddy.

[graybrown bird]

23 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

Nelson Rockefeller was Ford's VP & was a moderate, well-educated, old money Republican.  

Yes but I haven't heard him mentioned in 30 years.  Maybe 40.

Edited 14 hours ago by graybrown bird
Added two words.

[fairffaxx]

After he died (in his mistress' bed), there haven't been many like him who chose to be involved in politics.  Too undignified & not much fun.

[bluegirl147]

6 minutes ago, graybrown bird said:

Yes but I haven't heard him mentioned in 30 years.  Maybe 40.

He was a character in the miniseries Swans last year so there is that.

[Dimity]

I certainly knew who he was (didn't know the circumstances of his death though - reminds me of The Bird Cage) but the idea that anyone on "the left" is talking about Rockefeller Republicans is a new one on me.  I'd hazard to say anyone under, say 40, would have to look him up.  Maybe not.

[partofme]

6 minutes ago, Dimity said:

I certainly knew who he was (didn't know the circumstances of his death though - reminds me of The Bird Cage) but the idea that anyone on "the left" is talking about Rockefeller Republicans is a new one on me.  I'd hazard to say anyone under, say 40, would have to look him up.  Maybe not.

Not only under 40.  I was a baby when Ford was President, I have no idea who his VP was.  When I hear the name Rockefeller I think of John D Rockefeller.  

[anony.miss]

19 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

He was a character in the miniseries Swans last year so there is that.

LOL (he's also mentioned in Mad Men - Betty Draper's second husband worked for Rockefeller).

22 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

After he died (in his mistress' bed)

Cherry on the irony cake: his wife's name was "Happy".

Edited 14 hours ago by anony.miss

[Dimity]

4 minutes ago, partofme said:

 When I hear the name Rockefeller I think of John D Rockefeller.  

Good point.  I think most of us are aware of the Rockefeller name and not because a Rockefeller was a VP.

And with regard to VPs in general I'd be hardpressed to name most VPs unless there was something particularly noteworthy about them.  Like a VP becoming president due to the death of the president (Truman and LBJ) or due a president resigning in shame (Ford) or because they are a truly horrible person who should be in the dictionary next to "despicable" (Vance).

Edited 14 hours ago by Dimity

[fairffaxx]

Same family.

[MostlyContent]

26 minutes ago, kittykat said:

And to the Rutherford Hayes reference, he only won because he promised to withdraw Northern troops from the South thus ending Reconstruction and ushering the era of Jim Crow. Nice legacy buddy.

That's not quite fair to Hayes!  lol!  As a strict abolitionist, he tried many times to get the Democrats to fall in line after the war.  He didn't get too far, as the Dems who were willing to go to war in order to preserve their right to own people were still a bit miffed, I guess.  I don't like to use Wiki as a 'source', but I don't have much time right now and it's enough to encourage other searches if one would be interested.  

Quote

The South and the end of Reconstruction

Hayes had firmly supported Republican Reconstruction policies throughout his career, but the first major act of his presidency was an end to Reconstruction and the return of the South to "home rule".[131] Even without the conditions of the Wormley's Hotel agreement, Hayes would have been hard-pressed to continue his predecessors' policies. The House of Representatives in the 45th Congress was controlled by a majority of Democrats, and they refused to appropriate enough funds for the army to continue to garrison the South.[132] Even among Republicans, devotion to continued military Reconstruction was fading in the face of persistent Southern insurgency and violence.[133] Only two states, South Carolina and Louisiana, were still under Reconstruction's sway when Hayes assumed the presidency on March 5. On April 3, Hayes ordered Secretary of War George W. McCrary to withdraw federal troops stationed at the South Carolina State House to their barracks. On April 20, he ordered McCrary to send the federal troops stationed at New Orleans's St. Louis Hotel to Jackson Barracks.[126]

At the time of the 1876 election only three states, Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana, still had Republican governments. In Florida the Democrats won the governor's election and controlled the state house, leaving South Carolina and Louisiana as the only states where Republican regimes were still supported by federal troops.[134] Without troops to enforce the voting rights laws, these soon fell to Democratic control.[135]

Hayes's later attempts to protect the rights of southern blacks were ineffective, as were his attempts to rebuild Republican strength in the South.[136] But he did defeat Congress's efforts to curtail federal power to monitor federal elections.[137] Democrats in Congress passed an army appropriation bill in 1879 with a rider that would have repealed the Enforcement Acts, which had been used to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. Chapters had flourished across the South and it had been one of the insurgent groups that attacked and suppressed freedmen.[137] Those Acts, passed during Reconstruction, made it a crime to prevent someone from voting because of his race. Other paramilitary groups, such as the Red Shirts in the Carolinas, however, had intimidated freedmen and suppressed the vote. Hayes was determined to preserve the law protecting black voters, and vetoed the appropriation.[137]

The Democrats did not have enough votes to override the veto, but they passed a new bill with the same rider. Hayes vetoed that bill too, and the process was repeated three more times.[137] Finally, Congress passed a bill without the offensive rider, but refused to pass another bill to fund federal marshals, who were vital to the enforcement of the Enforcement Acts.[137] The election laws remained in effect, but the funds to enforce them were curtailed for the time being.[138]

Hayes tried to reconcile the social mores of the South with the recently passed civil rights laws by distributing patronage among southern Democrats. "My task was to wipe out the color line, to abolish sectionalism, to end the war and bring peace," he wrote in his diary. "To do this, I was ready to resort to unusual measures and to risk my own standing and reputation within my party and the country."[139] All his efforts were in vain; Hayes failed to persuade the South to accept legal racial equality or to convince Congress to appropriate funds to enforce the civil rights laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_B._Hayes

Oh!  Jim Crow.....also a Democrat thing.  

Quote

During the Reconstruction era of 1865–1877, federal laws provided civil rights protections in the U.S. South for freedmen, African Americans who were former slaves, and the minority of black people who had been free before the war. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures[18] as violent insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, White League, and Red Shirts disrupted Republican organizing, ran Republican officeholders out of town, and lynched black voters as an intimidation tactic to suppress the black vote.[19] Extensive voter fraud was also used. In one instance, an outright coup or insurrection in coastal North Carolina led to the violent removal of democratically elected Republican party executive and representative officials, who were either hunted down or hounded out. Gubernatorial elections were close and had been disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against black Americans during campaigns from 1868 onward.[20]

The Compromise of 1877 to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state.[21] These Southern, white, "Redeemer" governments legislated Jim Crow laws, officially segregating the country's population. Jim Crow laws were a manifestation of authoritarian rule specifically directed at one racial group.[22]

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