Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 11, 2016, 05:55:51 PM
First, how many other folks are in this basket of hers. Second, do we assume that as President she would not represent those folks in her basket?
I thought the President was President of all the people, apparently not with Hillary.
The more I think about this the more pissed off I become.
Post by: Lucifer on September 11, 2016, 06:06:39 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 11, 2016, 06:08:33 PM
Hillary will represent those who have paid for the service.
correct. Just look at the "donor" list.
Post by: bflynn on September 11, 2016, 06:49:44 PM
Post by: Lucifer on September 11, 2016, 06:54:17 PM
Hillary isn't going to be president. She's going to keel over dead first.
Be still my heart!
Post by: Anthony on September 12, 2016, 03:44:05 AM
With her most recent proclamation about half of Trump supporters being in her basket of deplorables, it makes me wonder about a couple of things.
First, how many other folks are in this basket of hers. Second, do we assume that as President she would not represent those folks in her basket?
I thought the President was President of all the people, apparently not with Hillary.
The more I think about this the more pissed off I become.
Do you think Obama, Hillary or any of the Dems want to represent those non victim, white guys that don't vote for them? They loath us to the point of public ridicule. We didn't build that! We're racist, homophobe misogynists!
Post by: nddons on September 12, 2016, 12:21:08 PM
Post by: asechrest on September 12, 2016, 12:44:16 PM
Quote
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Post by: acrogimp on September 12, 2016, 01:34:57 PM
Romney's comment was worse, but similar. They're both idiots for allowing words like that to escape their lips, considering they are vying to be president of all Americans. Here is Hillary's full quote:Actually, Hillary's comment is far, far worse than Romney's.
To refresh everyone, here is Romney's quote:
Quote
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
While both are in a way harshly judgmental on the surface, Romney was only commenting on the percentage unlikely to vote for him and how that played into his job as a candidate, he was saying there was a percentage of the population that he did not see a way to reach as a candidate - where Hillary is casting roughly the same percentage of the population as 'deplorable' she is calling out 1/4 of the electorate as 'deplorable' AND 'irredeemable', using some of the most awful perjoratives possible - calling them 'NOT American' and therefore not deserving of any consideration or representation. She is not dismissing them as unworthy of her campaigning, she is defining them as unworthy of any consideration or representation - dehumanizing them, and verbally attempting to disenfranchise them.
Two totally different things.
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on September 12, 2016, 02:35:11 PM
Actually, Hillary's comment is far, far worse than Romney's.
To refresh everyone, here is Romney's quote:
While both are in a way harshly judgmental on the surface, Romney was only commenting on the percentage unlikely to vote for him and how that played into his job as a candidate, he was saying there was a percentage of the population that he did not see a way to reach as a candidate - where Hillary is casting roughly the same percentage of the population as 'deplorable' she is calling out 1/4 of the electorate as 'deplorable' AND 'irredeemable', using some of the most awful perjoratives possible - calling them 'NOT American' and therefore not deserving of any consideration or representation. She is not dismissing them as unworthy of her campaigning, she is defining them as unworthy of any consideration or representation - dehumanizing them, and verbally attempting to disenfranchise them.
Two totally different things.
'Gimp
You have misread her quote. She did not say "not American", she said "not America", meaning even those who are racist etc. are not representative of what America stands for. You also didn't include Romney's full quote, so I'll do that here:
Quote
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4
While I'll give you that a number of Clinton's words were more harsh, you have downplayed Romney's quote. He quite literally said that nearly half of the population (or perhaps half of voters, if we're generous) are government moochers, with a victim mentality, who feel entitled to everything, that pay no income tax, that take no responsibility for themselves or their lives, and are not thoughtful (read: stupid). And he lumped in far more people into that group than Clinton has, and said his job is not to worry about those people, despite the fact that it would be his job to worry about those people were he to become president. So your whitewash of his comments is dubious.
Still, if Clinton suffers the same fate Romney did in part as a result of these comments, it's no skin off my back. I would only hope that by some frigging miracle that Trump is not the beneficiary of her fate.
Post by: nddons on September 12, 2016, 03:34:18 PM
Romney's comment was worse, but similar. They're both idiots for allowing words like that to escape their lips, considering they are vying to be president of all Americans. Here is Hillary's full quote:I'm stunned at your opinion on this. While unwise, Romney was looking at a group and suggesting motivations as to why they would vote D. Hillary just called a bunch of people, I guess me included now, as racist and every other hateful, disgusting characterization that she mentioned.
Is there nothing she can say that would dissuade you?
Post by: Little Joe on September 12, 2016, 04:04:54 PM
I'm stunned at your opinion on this. While unwise, Romney was looking at a group and suggesting motivations as to why they would vote D. Hillary just called a bunch of people, I guess me included now, as racist and every other hateful, disgusting characterization that she mentioned.Why are you stunned? You knew which position he would take merely due to the parties in question.
Is there nothing she can say that would dissuade you?
Post by: nddons on September 12, 2016, 04:30:56 PM
Why are you stunned? You knew which position he would take merely due to the parties in question.As a liberal, Asechrest tends to be more thoughtful and fair and balanced. In my experience he is no partisan hack. Thus my shock at his take on the two statements.
Post by: Little Joe on September 12, 2016, 05:35:26 PM
As a liberal, Asechrest tends to be more thoughtful and fair and balanced. In my experience he is no partisan hack. Thus my shock at his take on the two statements.I do agree with you to a point. But you still know which side of the issue he is going to come down on. He just doesn't pile up on the lies like other liberals do.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 12, 2016, 07:23:41 PM
Post by: asechrest on September 12, 2016, 09:09:47 PM
As a liberal, Asechrest tends to be more thoughtful and fair and balanced. In my experience he is no partisan hack. Thus my shock at his take on the two statements.
Thanks for that. Hillary called half of Trump supporters irredeemable deplorables. Romney called half the country lazy, stupid, moochers (that it was in context of his campaign tactics is no consolation).
After further consideration I'll retract my statement that Romney's comments were worse and decline to compare them. Instead I'll just say that both statements were stupid and inaccurate, and Clinton's should have just as much political consequence as Romney's, though I don't know that it will.
Post by: asechrest on September 12, 2016, 09:12:14 PM
Romney made his comments in a closed meeting and Hillary made hers in an open campaign event that she knew was being taped. While I don't dismiss what Romney said, he was pretty much on target. We have reached a point in this country where the Democrats just have to keep promising to keep the welfare programs going and they have a set of automatic votes.
He was not on target and should have had the guts to say it out loud if it was to be said at all. Mama always said...
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 13, 2016, 03:58:05 AM
Thanks for that. Hillary called half of Trump supporters irredeemable deplorables. Romney called half the country lazy, stupid, moochers (that it was in context of his campaign tactics is no consolation).
um, exactly when did Romney use the words "lazy" or "stupid" or "moochers"?
Post by: Number7 on September 13, 2016, 05:10:47 AM
Romney's comment was worse, but similar. They're both idiots for allowing words like that to escape their lips, considering they are vying to be president of all Americans. Here is Hillary's full quote:
That is sheer bullshit. Trying to tie Romney's true comment to Hilary Clinton's utter hypocrisy is a long time tactic of the left to take the sting out of their never ending hatred for anyone that dares to live off the leftist reservation.
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 06:38:15 AM
um, exactly when did Romney use the words "lazy" or "stupid" or "moochers"?
At a closed-door donor meeting in Boca Raton. You can borrow my Guide to Translating Political Weasel Words, Volume 47 to understand what he said. ;D
Post by: bflynn on September 13, 2016, 07:35:08 AM
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 07:54:36 AM
Last I checked, Romney is not running for president. What he may or may not have said a few years ago is pretty irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to current outcomes, agreed. But it's not irrelevant to a discussion about whether people who refused to vote for Romney because of his 47% remark will do the same with Hillary because of her remarks. That is how this line of discussion began.
Post by: Number7 on September 13, 2016, 08:46:47 AM
It is irrelevant to current outcomes, agreed. But it's not irrelevant to a discussion about whether people who refused to vote for Romney because of his 47% remark will do the same with Hillary because of her remarks. That is how this line of discussion began.
EXCEPT for the fact that you have to torture the facts to make even a pathetic connection between the two...
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 13, 2016, 08:59:46 AM
At a closed-door donor meeting in Boca Raton. You can borrow my Guide to Translating Political Weasel Words, Volume 47 to understand what he said. ;D
in other words, you are making s*** up in a pathetic attempt at defending the crap from the corrupt CAB doormat.
The fact is that Romney called "half the country lazy, stupid, moochers "
or is that you equate welfare recipients with "lazy, stupid, moochers"?
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 09:02:56 AM
EXCEPT for the fact that you have to torture the facts to make even a pathetic connection between the two...
I'm not surprised you disagree, FC. No facts were tortured. Here are my words again for you. Tell me specifically where you disagree. Extra credit if you can end a sentence with something other than a proclamation about the evils of liberalism.
Quote
He quite literally said that nearly half of the population (or perhaps half of voters, if we're generous) are government moochers, with a victim mentality, who feel entitled to everything, that pay no income tax, that take no responsibility for themselves or their lives, and are not thoughtful (read: stupid). And he lumped in far more people into that group than Clinton has, and said his job is not to worry about those people, despite the fact that it would be his job to worry about those people were he to become president. So your whitewash of his comments is dubious.
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 09:06:27 AM
in other words, you are making s*** up in a pathetic attempt at defending the crap from the corrupt CAB doormat.
The fact is that Romney called "half the country lazy, stupid, moochers "
or is that you equate welfare recipients with "lazy, stupid, moochers"?
Read my words, Bob. Where have I defended Hillary? I made a comparison to Romney after it was brought up by someone else. I have since retracted my value statement about whose words were worse.
Quote
He quite literally said that nearly half of the population (or perhaps half of voters, if we're generous) are government moochers, with a victim mentality, who feel entitled to everything, that pay no income tax, that take no responsibility for themselves or their lives, and are not thoughtful (read: stupid). And he lumped in far more people into that group than Clinton has, and said his job is not to worry about those people, despite the fact that it would be his job to worry about those people were he to become president. So your whitewash of his comments is dubious.
Post by: bflynn on September 13, 2016, 09:12:20 AM
I'm not surprised you disagree, FC. No facts were tortured. Here are my words again for you. Tell me specifically where you disagree. Extra credit if you can end a sentence with something other than a proclamation about the evils of liberalism.
Quote
He quite literally said that nearly half of the population (or perhaps half of voters, if we're generous) are government moochers, with a victim mentality, who feel entitled to everything, that pay no income tax, that take no responsibility for themselves or their lives, and are not thoughtful (read: stupid).
Quote from: Romney
All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement.
Please correct me if I've quoted this wrong. You have tortured the facts to make the connection.
Romney was saying that 47% of the people depend on the government for their livlihood. I don't see the ideas that they of moochers, "victim mentality" or "entitled to everything", abdicating responsibility or not being thoughtful.
But let's assume that was what he meant. Was he wrong? Are there people like this? Do you think that attacking facts because you don't like what they imply is a positive way to have a civil discourse?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 13, 2016, 09:57:49 AM
Read my words, Bob. Where have I defended Hillary? I made a comparison to Romney after it was brought up by someone else. I have since retracted my value statement about whose words were worse.
forgive me for assuming you were attempting to defend the corrupt doormat when you misquoted and grossly misrepresented what Romney said.
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 10:41:55 AM
forgive me for assuming you were attempting to defend the corrupt doormat when you misquoted and grossly misrepresented what Romney said.
Forgive me for assuming you would only accuse me of defending Hillary if I -- oh, I don't know -- actually defended her. In lieu of what I did do, which is to suggest she deserves the same fate as Romney!
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 11:47:55 AM
Please correct me if I've quoted this wrong. You have tortured the facts to make the connection.
Romney was saying that 47% of the people depend on the government for their livlihood. I don't see the ideas that they of moochers, "victim mentality" or "entitled to everything", abdicating responsibility or not being thoughtful.
You have quoted it wrong. Let's first start with Romney's actual quote, which I have previously posted in this thread:
Quote
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4
Now I'll break it down.
Government moochers: "...there are 47 percent...who are dependent upon government...who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."
Victim mentality: "there are 47 percent...who believe that they are victims"
Entitled to everything: "who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."
Abdicating responsibility: "...there are 47 percent...who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them...I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Not thoughtful (read: stupid): "And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful..."
But let's assume that was what he meant. Was he wrong? Are there people like this? Do you think that attacking facts because you don't like what they imply is a positive way to have a civil discourse?
Yes he was wrong, just as Clinton is wrong with her statement. Yes there are some people like that. No I don't think that attacking facts because you don't like what they imply is appropriate.
What is entirely appropriate is to call someone out for painting half the people (or electorate) with drastically too-broad a brush. Romney was, and Clinton is, deserving of ridicule for their statements.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 13, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Forgive me for assuming you would only accuse me of defending Hillary if I -- oh, I don't know -- actually defended her. In lieu of what I did do, which is to suggest she deserves the same fate as Romney!
But since you are grossly misrepresenting what Romney said, it's disingenuous to say the corrupt doormat deserves the same fate.
Post by: Steingar on September 13, 2016, 01:17:07 PM
That said, she really did put her foot in it admittedly. I doubt she has the grace to dig herself back out.
Post by: bflynn on September 13, 2016, 01:27:14 PM
she was referring to the white supremacists and alt-right crowd, who do comprise the core of Trump's support and have for some time.
Anyone who stops to think about facts would have to really question this logic. For this to be true, white supremacists and the Klan types would have to constitute a significant majority in the Republican party.
But where are they? Trump got 13 million votes in the primaries. Obviously these are not all core trump supporters, but can you name racist groups that make up even a million people to claim that is Trump's core support?
Start naming names and naming groups/sizes. I think you're just parroting what someone else said and you never even stopped to think about how ridiculous you would sound saying it.
Post by: asechrest on September 13, 2016, 01:27:36 PM
But since you are grossly misrepresenting what Romney said, it's disingenuous to say the corrupt doormat deserves the same fate.
You're welcome to your opinion. I have given mine, and my analysis.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on September 13, 2016, 02:51:35 PM
Post by: Little Joe on September 13, 2016, 02:55:32 PM
It's just silly to argue about Romney v. Clinton when it comes to stupid remarks. Obviously, Hillary's remark was worse because she said "half," which translates to 50 percent. Romney came in with the lower number at "47 percent." Thus, Clinton's stupidity is greater, and she should lose more votes because of it. You're welcome. :)Believe me, I am the last person that would defend Clinton, but
It seems to me that Romney was talking about 47% of the voters.
Clinton spoke of half of Trump's supporters.
Trump supporters probably max out and 40% of the voters and half of that would be 20%.
But Clinton's remarks are worse because I already hate her. And she was talking about me.
Post by: Number7 on September 14, 2016, 07:42:24 AM
You're welcome to your opinion. I have given mine, and my analysis.
That's not analysis. That's your never ending loyalty to the letter after her name, at ANY COST.
When you repharase every word to make it sound bad, you are the intellectually dishonest one that you try to portray the entire right as being.
Post by: asechrest on September 14, 2016, 08:15:11 AM
That's not analysis. That's your never ending loyalty to the letter after her name, at ANY COST.
When you repharase every word to make it sound bad, you are the intellectually dishonest one that you try to portray the entire right as being.
Right-wing-nutjob auto-responder strikes again. :D
Post by: Anthony on September 14, 2016, 08:46:47 AM
Post by: Steingar on September 15, 2016, 10:53:45 AM
Anyone who stops to think about facts would have to really question this logic. For this to be true, white supremacists and the Klan types would have to constitute a significant majority in the Republican party.
But where are they? Trump got 13 million votes in the primaries. Obviously these are not all core trump supporters, but can you name racist groups that make up even a million people to claim that is Trump's core support?
Start naming names and naming groups/sizes. I think you're just parroting what someone else said and you never even stopped to think about how ridiculous you would sound saying it.
I genuinely don't know, but neither Trump nor Pence was willing to denounce David Duke, and Trump has gotten a lot of material from White Supremacist websites. and like I said, Breitbart himself is running the show. If you wan too parse it out, "half" was a bit strong. But there are some big-time Trump supporters who truly deserve the label "deplorable".
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 11:14:24 AM
I genuinely don't know, but neither Trump nor Pence was willing to denounce David Duke, and Trump has gotten a lot of material from White Supremacist websites. and like I said, Breitbart himself is running the show. If you wan too parse it out, "half" was a bit strong. But there are some big-time Trump supporters who truly deserve the label "deplorable".
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clinton-kkk/
But there are some big-time Trump supporters who truly deserve the label "deplorable".
And there is a long, long list of Clinton supporters who give the word "deplorable" a whole new meaning.
example:
George Soros
Bill Ayers
David Brock
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
I genuinely don't know, but neither Trump nor Pence was willing to denounce David Duke,
Another lie perfessor http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/
and like I said, Breitbart himself is running the show. .
Kinda difficult for him to be "running the show" considering he is dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/business/media/the-life-and-death-of-andrew-breitbart.html
Your ignorance is truly astounding.
Post by: asechrest on September 15, 2016, 11:17:47 AM
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 11:43:06 AM
What's up with "perfessor"? Is that some attempt to illustrate your anti-intellectualism?
Nice deflection off the topic. ::)
Post by: asechrest on September 15, 2016, 11:50:40 AM
Nice deflection off the topic. ::)
Did it on purpose. But you should get a nifty beanie that says "thread police". :D Most people look great in beanies.
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 12:16:29 PM
Quote
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
Quote
The first Klan had mixed results in terms of achieving its objectives. It seriously weakened the black political establishment through its use of assassinations and threats of violence; it drove some people out of politics. On the other hand, it caused a sharp backlash, with passage of federal laws that historian Eric Foner says were a success in terms of "restoring order, reinvigorating the morale of Southern Republicans, and enabling blacks to exercise their rights as citizens." Historian George C. Rable argues that the Klan was a political failure and therefore was discarded by the Democratic leaders of the South. He says:
the Klan declined in strength in part because of internal weaknesses; its lack of central organization and the failure of its leaders to control criminal elements and sadists. More fundamentally, it declined because it failed to achieve its central objective – the overthrow of Republican state governments in the South.
Quote
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace (D) of Alabama.
Quote
Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life
Quote
In the mid-1870s, new groups of insurgents, local paramilitary organizations such as the White League, Red Shirts, saber clubs, and rifle clubs, emerged, continuing to intimidate and murder black political leaders.[86] The White League and Red Shirts were distinguished by their willingness to cultivate publicity, working directly to overturn Republican officeholders and regain control of politics.
Quote
It had a national base by 1925. In the South, where the great majority of whites were Democrats, the Klansmen were Democrats.
Quote
Catholic and liberal Democrats—who were strongest in northeastern cities—decided to make the Klan an issue at the 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. Their delegates proposed a resolution indirectly attacking the Klan; it was defeated by one vote out of 1100.
Quote
In the South, Klan members were still Democratic, as it was a one-party region for whites. Klan chapters were closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. Since disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites around the start of the 20th century, the only political activity for whites took place within the Democratic Party.
Quote
In Alabama, Klan members advocated better public schools, effective prohibition enforcement, expanded road construction, and other political measures to benefit lower-class white people. By 1925, the Klan was a political force in the state, as leaders such as J. Thomas Heflin (D), David Bibb Graves(D), and Hugo Black(D) tried to build political power against the Black Belt planters, who had long dominated the state.[127] In 1926, with Klan support, Bibb Graves won the Alabama governor's office. He was a former Klan chapter head. He pushed for increased education funding, better public health, new highway construction, and pro-labor legislation. Because the Alabama state legislature refused to redistrict until 1972, and then under court order, the Klan was unable to break the planters' and rural areas' hold on legislative power. Scholars and biographers have recently examined Hugo Black's Klan role. Ball finds regarding the KKK that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[128] Newman says Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave over 100 anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to KKK meetings across Alabama.[129] Black was elected US senator in 1926 as a Democrat. In 1937 President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Black to the Supreme Court without knowing how active in the Klan he had been in the 1920s. He was confirmed by his fellow Senators before the full KKK connection was known; Justice Black said he left the Klan when he became a senator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
Quote
In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:
I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.
Quote
In the time leading up to the 1868 presidential election, the Klan's activities picked up in speed and brutality. The election, which pitted Republican Ulysses S. Grant against Democrat Horatio Seymour, was crucial. Republicans would continue programs that prevented Southern whites from gaining political control in their states. Klan members knew that given the chance, the blacks in their communities would vote Republican.
Across the South, the Klan and other terrorist groups used brutal violence to intimidate Republican voters. In Kansas, over 2,000 murders were committed in connection with the election. In Georgia, the number of threats and beatings was even higher. And in Louisiana, 1000 blacks were killed as the election neared. In those three states, Democrats won decisive victories at the polls.
http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/the-democratic-party-and-the-kkk-11769046/
Quote
Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods
By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).
This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they’ve scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it’s easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!
Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.
One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.” An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/the_secret_racist_history_of_the_democratic_party.html
Post by: nddons on September 15, 2016, 12:37:03 PM
A little history of the KKKDidn't you hear? At some mysterious place and point in time, democrats and republicans stopped the game, switched jerseys, and continued the game while confusing observers as to who the racists actually were.
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/the-democratic-party-and-the-kkk-11769046/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/the_secret_racist_history_of_the_democratic_party.html
Post by: Steingar on September 15, 2016, 01:00:22 PM
Another lie perfessor http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/
Kinda difficult for him to be "running the show" considering he is dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/business/media/the-life-and-death-of-andrew-breitbart.html
You are of course correct. I was thinking of Steve Bannon, who only runs Breitbart. My apologies for my error.
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 01:07:27 PM
Here is your quote perfessor:
Quote
I genuinely don't know, but neither Trump nor Pence was willing to denounce David Duke
And here is the CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/
Seems to me like he denounced it over and over...........that is unless you are trying to imply CNN fabricated that link?
Post by: Steingar on September 15, 2016, 01:09:14 PM
Seems to me like he denounced it over and over...........that is unless you are trying to imply CNN fabricated that link?
Yeah, sure, he backtracked after the fact. Way to go Trump! The fact that he wouldn't do it out of the gate doesn't mean anything!
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
Yeah, sure, he backtracked after the fact. Way to go Trump! The fact that he wouldn't do it out of the gate doesn't mean anything!
But you claimed
Quote
I genuinely don't know, but neither Trump nor Pence was willing to denounce David Duke
and now you are back tracking it since you got caught in another lie.
Post by: asechrest on September 15, 2016, 01:36:16 PM
Here is your quote perfessor:
Stop it, Lercifer.
Post by: Steingar on September 15, 2016, 01:41:22 PM
and now you are back tracking it since you got caught in another lie.
I didn't lie. He got asked point blank about Duke and punted. He only recanted later. Sorry, that really doesn't cut it in a Presidential election. That's why Trump commands about 1% of the African american vote and about 23% of Hispanics. And I don't want to get started on all the ways he's honked off women. The guy is poison. if you had any brains you'd be rooting full scale for Hillary. If she wins there's a Conservative backlash and the GOP will probably replace her in four years. If Trump wins you can kiss the GOP goodbye. I can only imagine its status after 4 years of him on the bully pulpit.
Post by: Lucifer on September 15, 2016, 01:45:29 PM
I didn't lie. He got asked point blank about Duke and punted. He only recanted later. Sorry, that really doesn't cut it in a Presidential election. That's why Trump commands about 1% of the African american vote and about 23% of Hispanics. And I don't want to get started on all the ways he's honked off women. The guy is poison. if you had any brains you'd be rooting full scale for Hillary. If she wins there's a Conservative backlash and the GOP will probably replace her in four years. If Trump wins you can kiss the GOP goodbye. I can only imagine its status after 4 years of him on the bully pulpit.
Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.
And like your beloved democrats you were caught squarely in a lie, tried to back track it and then resorted to insults to cover for it.
This is not your classroom where you can spout out any lie you wish to your captive audience and not fear retribution.
Post by: Anthony on September 15, 2016, 02:11:01 PM
Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.
And like your beloved democrats you were caught squarely in a lie, tried to back track it and then resorted to insults to cover for it.
This is not your classroom where you can spout out any lie you wish to your captive audience and not fear retribution.
He's almost a good a liar as Hillary.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on September 15, 2016, 02:32:38 PM
Didn't you hear? At some mysterious place and point in time, democrats and republicans stopped the game, switched jerseys, and continued the game while confusing observers as to who the racists actually were.
Of course Robert Byrd totally missed the memo on that one.
Post by: nddons on September 15, 2016, 03:18:56 PM
Stop it, Lercifer.
Post by: bflynn on September 16, 2016, 05:48:50 AM
I didn't lie. He got asked point blank about Duke and punted.
I might be wrong, but I think his words were "I don't know about white supremacists".
I have to confess ignorance on this too. There aren't many of them around and they're not a factor in the political arena. I know just about nothing about them either. I only know the name David Duke because it's been mentioned here. Beyond that can anyone name a single person without referencing Google?
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 07:11:39 AM
I might be wrong, but I think his words were "I don't know about white supremacists".
I have to confess ignorance on this too. There aren't many of them around and they're not a factor in the political arena. I know just about nothing about them either. I only know the name David Duke because it's been mentioned here. Beyond that can anyone name a single person without referencing Google?
Dylan Roof? That's all I can think of at the moment.
Post by: Steingar on September 16, 2016, 11:40:46 AM
Your ignorance is truly breathtaking.
Again, personal insults don't make you correct.
And like your beloved democrats you were caught squarely in a lie, tried to back track it and then resorted to insults to cover for it.
Not at all. I posted the video even, if you care to look. Trump knew exactly who Duke was, he'd talked about him perviously. Trump either knew what white supremacists are or was too ignorant of American culture to serve as POTUS.
This is not your classroom where you can spout out any lie you wish to your captive audience and not fear retribution.
In my classroom I teach Science. I stop frequently for questions as well. By the way, I doubt you'd last even two minutes in my classroom. I doubt you have the faculties of even the least of my excellent students. I don't worry about he future because I see the next generation, and I know they're a good bunch.
Post by: Lucifer on September 16, 2016, 11:46:34 AM
In my classroom I teach Science. I stop frequently for questions as well. By the way, I doubt you'd last even two minutes in my classroom. I doubt you have the faculties of even the least of my excellent students.
Spoken like a true academic elitist. Do you also use threats like this with your students as well?
BTW, judging from the online reviews of your class and your observed lack of teaching abilities I'm sure that's one class that wouldn't be missed.
You are a faux intellect at best.
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
Spoken like a true academic elitist. Do you also use threats like this with your students as well?
BTW, judging from the online reviews of your class and your observed lack of teaching abilities I'm sure that's one class that wouldn't be missed.
You are a faux intellect at best.
Come now, Lercifer, don't be jealous. Tell us your profession and name so we can judge for ourselves whether your accusations of faux intellect have merit. :)
Post by: Lucifer on September 16, 2016, 11:54:32 AM
Come now, Lercifer, don't be jealous. Tell us your profession and name so we can judge for ourselves whether your accusations of faux intellect have merit. :)
C'mon now, does your mommy know you are playing on her computer again?
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 12:01:44 PM
C'mon now, does your mommy know you are playing on her computer again?
She gave me permission. Don't be skurred, now. We simply want to check out your online presence like you do to others. :D
Post by: Steingar on September 16, 2016, 01:32:07 PM
Spoken like a true academic elitist. Do you also use threats like this with your students as well?
No, I don't threaten my students. To be honest, I'd give them all A's if I could. They're a good bunch.
BTW, judging from the online reviews of your class and your observed lack of teaching abilities I'm sure that's one class that wouldn't be missed.
You are a faux intellect at best.
Those are hurtful. The problem with these sort of self-reported on-line reviews is that they tend to attract complainers who really don't like things. That's why they have no weight at all in any official capacity. The problem is simple, if you do something that's very public, someone isn't going to like it. There's just no pleasing everyone all the time. Moreover, if you give someone a bad grade they won't like it and a lot of them will place the blame on you.
I guarantee anyone who gets good marks in a forum like the ones you've accessed has little to no rigor in their classes. That is a line I refuse to cross. I teach science, and science is a rigorous discipline. But why take the internet's word for it? You know who I am and where I teach. I'll even give you the time and location to my classes. You're a pilot, so getting here shouldn't be that big a deal. You have my permission to attend, can come see for yourself.
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 01:34:42 PM
I guarantee anyone who gets good marks in a forum like the ones you've accessed has little to no rigor in their classes. That is a line I refuse to cross. I teach science, and science is a rigorous discipline. But why take the internet's word for it? You know who I am and where I teach. I'll even give you the time and location to my classes. You're a pilot, so getting here shouldn't be that big a deal. You have my permission to attend, can come see for yourself.
Is he/she? Who knows. :)
Post by: Steingar on September 16, 2016, 01:36:39 PM
Is he/she? Who knows. :)
If he's not a pilot what's he doing here?
Post by: Lucifer on September 16, 2016, 02:27:02 PM
No, I don't threaten my students. To be honest, I'd give them all A's if I could. They're a good bunch.
Those are hurtful. The problem with these sort of self-reported on-line reviews is that they tend to attract complainers who really don't like things. That's why they have no weight at all in any official capacity. The problem is simple, if you do something that's very public, someone isn't going to like it. There's just no pleasing everyone all the time. Moreover, if you give someone a bad grade they won't like it and a lot of them will place the blame on you.
I guarantee anyone who gets good marks in a forum like the ones you've accessed has little to no rigor in their classes. That is a line I refuse to cross. I teach science, and science is a rigorous discipline. But why take the internet's word for it? You know who I am and where I teach. I'll even give you the time and location to my classes. You're a pilot, so getting here shouldn't be that big a deal. You have my permission to attend, can come see for yourself.
So the teachers on those sites that get rave reviews and compliments, must be from students who don't try and the teachers just give out easy grades? Right?
I'm sure your colleagues who get good reviews might take issue with that.
Post by: Lucifer on September 16, 2016, 02:27:36 PM
If he's not a pilot what's he doing here?
Being a pilot is required?
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
So the teachers on those sites that get rave reviews and compliments, must be from students who don't try and the teachers just give out easy grades? Right?
I'm sure your colleagues who get good reviews might take issue with that.
Can we see your online reviews?
Post by: Lucifer on September 16, 2016, 02:30:38 PM
Can we see your online reviews?
Yep. Start with the bible, then go to any of the Satanical sites, lots of people worship me. And fear me.
Post by: Mase on September 16, 2016, 02:31:17 PM
Post by: Little Joe on September 16, 2016, 03:21:16 PM
So the teachers on those sites that get rave reviews and compliments, must be from students who don't try and the teachers just give out easy grades? Right?Actually, I believe that is true.
I'm sure your colleagues who get good reviews might take issue with that.I'm sure that's true too.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on September 16, 2016, 08:15:09 PM
Moochelle is getting off to a good start on her very own lying career.
http://theweek.com/5things/649440/virginia-michelle-obama-praises-hillary-clintons-love-country
Post by: asechrest on September 16, 2016, 08:17:37 PM
Why, she'll represent all of us, of course, because she so loves her country!
Moochelle is getting off to a good start on her very own lying career.
http://theweek.com/5things/649440/virginia-michelle-obama-praises-hillary-clintons-love-country
You're better than that, Becky.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on September 16, 2016, 08:20:54 PM
You're better than that, Becky.Thanks. I do not respect her at all, however. And it has nothing to do with her color.
Post by: Number7 on September 17, 2016, 09:23:01 AM
Did it on purpose. But you should get a nifty beanie that says "thread police". :D Most people look great in beanies.
Are you so uncomfortable with diversity of opinions that you have to play this never ending pathetic game all the time?
Talk about thought police. You are the thought police.
Post by: bflynn on September 17, 2016, 11:45:15 AM
What's up with "perfessor"? Is that some attempt to illustrate your anti-intellectualism?
Used to high light The perfesser's ignorance and closed mindedness.
Post by: JeffDG on September 17, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 17, 2016, 12:21:04 PM
So, if you're claiming that President Clinton will represent her donors, does that mean that, as a donor, Trump wins regardless of how the vote goes?
NOBODY wins if the corrupt CAB doormat becomes President.
Post by: Steingar on September 17, 2016, 01:05:15 PM
Being a pilot is required?
I thought the name of this website was a dead giveaway. Silly me.
Post by: JeffDG on September 17, 2016, 04:36:38 PM
Being a pilot is required?You claimed to be one when you joined.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160917/10454ef12d068f247411b25c1759303d.jpg)
Post by: asechrest on September 17, 2016, 06:06:11 PM
Are you so uncomfortable with diversity of opinions that you have to play this never ending pathetic game all the time?
Talk about thought police. You are the thought police.
I only police intelligent thought, so you have no reason to worry, FC. ;)
Post by: asechrest on September 17, 2016, 06:07:54 PM
Used to high light The perfesser's ignorance and closed mindedness.
Seems to highlight the opposing party.
Post by: asechrest on September 17, 2016, 06:13:17 PM
Thanks. I do not respect her at all, however. And it has nothing to do with her color.
I didn't say it had to do with color. I just know from experience that you're thoughtful and well-written, and I didn't expect to see you resorting to that. It seems childish and distracts from what I know is your ability to lambast her on merit.
Post by: Number7 on September 18, 2016, 09:01:02 AM
I only police intelligent thought, so you have no reason to worry, FC. ;)
You really can't have a conversation because of your obsession with attacking those whose opinions clash with your politics.
The best thing to do with you is ignore your childish need to pretend you win by making fun of anything that endangers your
precious self image and selfish opinions.
Congratulations. You lost.
Post by: asechrest on September 18, 2016, 10:39:45 AM
You really can't have a conversation because of your obsession with attacking those whose opinions clash with your politics.
The best thing to do with you is ignore your childish need to pretend you win by making fun of anything that endangers your
precious self image and selfish opinions.
Congratulations. You lost.
Projection, FC.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on September 18, 2016, 10:57:24 AM
I didn't say it had to do with color. I just know from experience that you're thoughtful and well-written, and I didn't expect to see you resorting to that. It seems childish and distracts from what I know is your ability to lambast her on merit.We all have a shadow side. Mine seems to include the inability to use the correct name of someone I loathe. That includes titles, as well, such as "President." If I don't think someone is worthy of the title, I have a hard time using it.
I realize that using a derogatory name for someone reflects poorly on me and distracts from my point. I realized that when I originally typed "Moochelle." I actually backed it out and typed her name correctly, couldn't stomach it, and changed it back.
I'll try and get past my aversion to showing respect through correct naming. I suppose a person's name should be sacrosanct. And I appreciate being taken seriously, so there's that.
Post by: Anthony on September 18, 2016, 12:22:17 PM
Projection, FC.
He's not FC.
Post by: asechrest on September 18, 2016, 12:39:27 PM
He's not FC.
Yes he is.
Post by: Little Joe on September 18, 2016, 01:14:35 PM
Yes he is.Proof that you can draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
As a good liberal, you "feel" that he is FC, and that is good enough for you.
Post by: asechrest on September 18, 2016, 01:36:48 PM
Proof that you can draw conclusions from insufficient evidence.
As a good liberal, you "feel" that he is FC, and that is good enough for you.
Since you don't know what evidence I have, and you have subsequently drawn a conclusion based on that insufficient evidence, does that make you a Liberal along with me? Welcome to the dark side. :)
Post by: Anthony on September 18, 2016, 02:06:33 PM
Since you don't know what evidence I have, and you have subsequently drawn a conclusion based on that insufficient evidence, does that make you a Liberal along with me? Welcome to the dark side. :)
Number7 is a resident of the northeastern/mid Atlantic state in which I reside. I've met him. Florida Cracker (FC) is a resident of Florida.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 18, 2016, 02:09:21 PM
Number7 is a resident of the northeastern/mid Atlantic state in which I reside. I've met him. Florida Cracker (FC) is a resident of Florida.
How do we know that you aren't also FC?
;)
Post by: asechrest on September 18, 2016, 02:18:48 PM
Number7 is a resident of the northeastern/mid Atlantic state in which I reside. I've met him. Florida Cracker (FC) is a resident of Florida.
Are you sure about Number7?
http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=635.msg10469#msg10469
I already know where FC is from. I looked for him at Sun 'N Fun a couple years ago.
Post by: Gary on September 18, 2016, 03:27:25 PM
How do we know that you aren't also FC?
;)
;D I will be happy to confirm Anthony is a real, live person. The possibility that Anthony is also Number7, while measuable is highly unlikely.
Post by: Anthony on September 18, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
;D I will be happy to confirm Anthony is a real, live person. The possibility that Anthony is also Number7, while measuable is highly unlikely.
Thanks Gary! I think Bob was being facetious as he knows me from the AOPA, and POA days way, way back, as do you!!!
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 18, 2016, 05:07:23 PM
Thanks Gary! I think Bob was being facetious as he knows me from the AOPA, and POA days way, way back, as do you!!!
"facetious"? sarcastic and derisive, yes, but not facetious.
(one huge clue was the wink)
Post by: asechrest on September 18, 2016, 06:03:09 PM
Thanks Gary! I think Bob was being facetious as he knows me from the AOPA, and POA days way, way back, as do you!!!
We all know you from POA days and I have no beef with you. I'm just not sure which mid-Atlantic resident you met, since Number7 is from Florida, by his own words.
Post by: Number7 on September 19, 2016, 03:15:14 PM
Projection, FC.
You STILL can't get off your high horse and debate without stupidity.
I thought you were better than that, but you keep proving me wrong.
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 03:27:40 PM
We all know you from POA days and I have no beef with you.
Gee thanks. Now I can sleep at nights.
Post by: asechrest on September 19, 2016, 08:26:24 PM
Gee thanks. Now I can sleep at nights.
Waiting for your explanation of the discrepancy.
Post by: Anthony on September 19, 2016, 08:50:12 PM
Waiting for your explanation of the discrepancy.
Well fortunately I don't report to you. So keep waiting. I have time.
Post by: asechrest on September 20, 2016, 06:17:40 AM
Well fortunately I don't report to you. So keep waiting. I have time.
Can't say I had my hopes up that you'd defend that post.