ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists

[evenflow1969]

So you are saying that he won as a democrat huh? Your own numbers show he got no support in 1975 and was beaten the opposing candidate had twice as many votes so not very well received. We will take it one election at a time so your little mind can understand. Do you understand this so far?

You've been dissed and dismissed, moron.

Everyone seems to recognize your......disability.

Now, wander off.

Ah silence out of you! That is the way it should be! You hyave nothing but shit to say. Bet you remember Jungle Primary in the future. I love to silence your lies.

You need more of a spanking???

No prob....


1. Governor Clinton invited Orval Faubus to his inauguration and they exchanged an almost South American abrazo, embrace, http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/72551-1/Paul+Greenberg.aspx

a. Clinton’s mentor was J. William Fulbright, a vehement foe of integration who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

b. Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.


2. 1966- pro-integrationist Republican Winthrop Rockefeller won Arkansas, replacing Clinton-pal Orval Faubus.

1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Research - Articles - Journals | Research better, faster at HighBeam Research

a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.



3. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia



a. There were plenty of southern integrationists. They were Republicans.





They didn't teach that in government school??????

Blah,blah blah you said only democrats voted for duke in 1975 and were wrong just as you always are. We were talking duke that subject you lost. You do not get another chance for at least a week.

The vitriol is totally understandable.
You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history. Even when the proof is right before your eyes.

The funny thing is that you do not beleive in your party enough to be true about what it represents. You may want to explore that some.

 

[2aguy]

History repeats...

Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425


Antifa is the latest iteration of the Democrat's Klan

And todays clan is a republican, so the fuck what!

No...the klan is a democrat organization....they have no support in the Republican party and no friends in the Republican party....

Like hell! The clan rose in the south and thats is where the red states are. Mean while who has antifa attacked or killed? Shove the horse shit up your ass where it belongs.

The klan was started to resist republican rule of the defeated Confederate states. The klan killed or ran off carpet baggers and republican officeholders. It intimidated Republican voters influenced juries to free those arrested for resistance to northern rule and generally promoted anarchy. It became so powerful the northern congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act which required heavy penalties for klan activity. The Ku Klux Klan Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1882. Klan activities after the war have been propagandized to have been directed mainly against blacks when the goal of the klan activity was resistance fo Republican rule and those sent to rule the defeated provinces.

~~~~~~
Over 150 years later, things haven't changed. The Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrat KKK leaders modernized the name of the KKK to #Antifa....
See: antifa and black lives matter, the new terror arms of the democrat party...

Yes....they went from racism against blacks to taking in racists of all colors.... racism requires government power....that is why racists of all colors flock to the democrat party, the one party that wants more and more government power and who offers the benefit of enacting race hate against your enemies if you help them get power....

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've been dissed and dismissed, moron.

Everyone seems to recognize your......disability.

Now, wander off.

Ah silence out of you! That is the way it should be! You hyave nothing but shit to say. Bet you remember Jungle Primary in the future. I love to silence your lies.

You need more of a spanking???

No prob....


1. Governor Clinton invited Orval Faubus to his inauguration and they exchanged an almost South American abrazo, embrace, http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/72551-1/Paul+Greenberg.aspx

a. Clinton’s mentor was J. William Fulbright, a vehement foe of integration who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

b. Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.


2. 1966- pro-integrationist Republican Winthrop Rockefeller won Arkansas, replacing Clinton-pal Orval Faubus.

1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Research - Articles - Journals | Research better, faster at HighBeam Research

a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.



3. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia



a. There were plenty of southern integrationists. They were Republicans.





They didn't teach that in government school??????

Blah,blah blah you said only democrats voted for duke in 1975 and were wrong just as you always are. We were talking duke that subject you lost. You do not get another chance for at least a week.

The vitriol is totally understandable.
You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history. Even when the proof is right before your eyes.

The funny thing is that you do not beleive in your party enough to be true about what it represents. You may want to explore that some.

Party???

The party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship????

These Democrats?

See if there are any mistakes here...


1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne

2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.

3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.

4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress

5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.

6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.

7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.

8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..

9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.

10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.

11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?


No??

None???

Are you one of 'em????

 

[miketx]

You've been dissed and dismissed, moron.

Everyone seems to recognize your......disability.

Now, wander off.

Ah silence out of you! That is the way it should be! You hyave nothing but shit to say. Bet you remember Jungle Primary in the future. I love to silence your lies.

You need more of a spanking???

No prob....


1. Governor Clinton invited Orval Faubus to his inauguration and they exchanged an almost South American abrazo, embrace, http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/72551-1/Paul+Greenberg.aspx

a. Clinton’s mentor was J. William Fulbright, a vehement foe of integration who had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

b. Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend.


2. 1966- pro-integrationist Republican Winthrop Rockefeller won Arkansas, replacing Clinton-pal Orval Faubus.

1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …”
Research - Articles - Journals | Research better, faster at HighBeam Research

a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.



3. 1966- Republican Spiro Agnew ran against Democrat segregationists George Mahoney for governor of Maryland. Agnew enacted some of the first laws in the nation against race discrimination in public housing. “Agnew signed the state's first open-housing laws and succeeded in getting the repeal of an anti-miscegenation law.” Spiro Agnew - Wikipedia



a. There were plenty of southern integrationists. They were Republicans.





They didn't teach that in government school??????

Blah,blah blah you said only democrats voted for duke in 1975 and were wrong just as you always are. We were talking duke that subject you lost. You do not get another chance for at least a week.

The vitriol is totally understandable.
You simply cannot admit, even to yourself, that you have been so fooled, for so many years, to accept and endorse the very same beliefs as Stalin, Hitler, and pretty much every totalitarian in modern history. Even when the proof is right before your eyes.

The funny thing is that you do not beleive in your party enough to be true about what it represents. You may want to explore that some.

Funny thing how all regressive's pretend to know what people think.

 

[2aguy]

1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne

You might find this article instructive: Why Did Republicans Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate (2018)

From the abstract:

Using newly available data, we reexamine one of the largest partisan shifts in a modern democracy: Southern whites’ exodus from the Democratic Party. We show that defection among racially conservative whites explains the entire decline from 1958 to 1980. Racial attitudes also predict whites’ earlier partisan shifts. Relative to recent work, we find a much larger role for racial views and essentially no role for income growth or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost” the South
​

No.....the racists stayed in the democrat party....the democrat party today is still the home of racists....it just takes in racists of all colors now, not just white racists...who have moved maintained leadership positions in the party...

blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.


Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink


Ken Raymond
Jun 2011

Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

pic.twitter.com/XX9YGsQjYT

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Loved this.

 

[SavannahMann]

I wish they would back me in a corner.

But then you would have to go home and change your underpants.

Trolls like you always turn out to be cowards. It is quite possible I would wet myself, or worse. Defending your self can be very stressful but is not a sign of cowardice.

Well I did duck when I was shot at in Panama. And I ducked again in Iraq. But I returned fire on the hostile. Of course I was a Paratrooper, so cowards didn’t usually jump out of airplanes.

 

[well named]

No.....the racists stayed in the democrat party....

So, just to be clear, I cited an academic article published in a flagship economics journal which uses a variety of well-respected empirical data sources to investigate the transition of southern voters out of the Democratic party. You obviously didn't bother to even click the link. Instead, you cited the defunct website of some random guy you found on the internet who isn't even addressing the correct topic, which is not about Nixon, nor even about the "southern strategy" at all.

Here's what the authors of the article I cited say (emphases mine):

As illustrated in Figure 1, at mid-century white Southerners (defined throughout as residents of the 11 states of the former Confederacy) were 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats than were other whites. This advantage has since flipped in sign, with the most dramatic losses occurring during the 1960s. Despite the massive, concurrent enfranchisement of Southern blacks, who overwhelmingly favored the Democrats from 1964 onward, the resulting shifts in aggregate Southern political outcomes have been stark: to take but one example, in 1960, all US senators from the South were Democrats, whereas today all but 4 (of 22) are Republican.

As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the party’s advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.

On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern “dealignment” from the Democratic Party.

That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey ques-tions on racial attitudes, from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s, have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey (GSS), another commonly used dataset on Americans’ political and social views, begins in 1972.

In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents “Between now and ... [election]... there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?” Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having “racially conservative views.”

Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously “lost the South” with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations, as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.

Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic Party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958–1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.
​

That's a long quotation, but the point is the authors are connecting the southern realignment with Democratic support for civil rights in the 60s, rather than anything having to do with Nixon.

To be perfectly honest, I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are arguing in good faith, but I find it really difficult to believe that anyone actually believes that the Democratic party in 2018 represents the interests of white nationalists, despite the fact that literally all white nationalist groups oppose the Democratic party and support far right-wing candidates. It seems more likely to be some kind of trolling. In any case, the history is pretty interesting, and it's a well written article that's worth a read, for anyone actually interested.

​

 

[Joann Stubbs]

Look at the courageous mob chasing down the old man in the video.



Antifa hates the inequality in life because they can't compete in the harsh real world and THEY are the losers at the bottom. Of course capitalism sucks when you have 50,000 dollars in student loans from chasing a useless degree and the only job you can get afterwards is a blue collar job that your arrogant, delusional, pseudo-intellectual ass sees as beneath you.

I hope that happens to me. They will remember me every time they put their pants on.

I just know you would do it. You did it before.....lol Fam jk Bro

 

[MindWars]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Antifa is patching potholes that aren't being fixed by the city. They are donating the labor materials and equipment. Nobody expects you to praise them for their voluntary community service, but you could back off on the whining a little. Act like a grown up.

Patching pot holes by slamming the faces of Jews (white people) into them?

You fucking Nazis are playing a deadly game.

Never again Nazi.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Anarchy In Portland: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)​

ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)
There was pure anarchy in the streets of Portland over the weekend, as Antifa took over directing traffic and harassed elderly motorists.
Portland has one of the largest and most active populations of Antifa members in the United States.
On Saturday, a group of the violent far-left extremists took over directing traffic in the city without the city stepping in to keep the peace and protect drivers.
“You’re a whitey, aren’t ya! Get the f*** down the road!” the leftists scream at a motorist.
The vulgar and violent group noticed North Carolina plates on a vehicle and began shouting at the couple in the car saying that they are white supremacists. They shouted at multiple drivers threatening to “beat their ass.”



~~~~~~
Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats aka DSA are proud of their shows of Anarchy and violence in the streets. This is what they want for America. I guess it takes longer for the PPD to get back from their weed break so they let #Antifa take over routine duties like traffic control.
We now have what is DEFINED AS TERRORISM.... Portland is now under Antifa terrorist control just like Beirut, parts of Iraq, Syria and West Africa. WHERE IN THE HELL IS SESSIONS AND THE DOJ...????
At this point, if the mayor isn't going to order the police to protect civilians from Antifa, I think at the very least, Portland ought to send out an emergency alert warning people away from an Antifa gathering. Antifa acts like they own downtown, Pioneer Square and the Transit Centers. Normal people are scared for their lives. Business owners are scared too. The damn mayor consistently tells the police to "stand down." He should be tarred and feathered...
This is the America, that Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats want for YOU. Harassment, Intimidation and Violence.

The State Department regularly lists areas that are dangerous or at least, risky to Americans when they travel abroad. The State Department needs to include Portland in their listing, citing the reasons. Perhaps it's time to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, send in federal troops and drag away the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police, with additional orders to use whatever force is necessary to reign in the leftist-loonies.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I wonder whether he (?) would bake a cake for a gay wedding?

 

[BULLDOG]

Anarchy In Portland: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)​

ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)
There was pure anarchy in the streets of Portland over the weekend, as Antifa took over directing traffic and harassed elderly motorists.
Portland has one of the largest and most active populations of Antifa members in the United States.
On Saturday, a group of the violent far-left extremists took over directing traffic in the city without the city stepping in to keep the peace and protect drivers.
“You’re a whitey, aren’t ya! Get the f*** down the road!” the leftists scream at a motorist.
The vulgar and violent group noticed North Carolina plates on a vehicle and began shouting at the couple in the car saying that they are white supremacists. They shouted at multiple drivers threatening to “beat their ass.”



~~~~~~
Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats aka DSA are proud of their shows of Anarchy and violence in the streets. This is what they want for America. I guess it takes longer for the PPD to get back from their weed break so they let #Antifa take over routine duties like traffic control.
We now have what is DEFINED AS TERRORISM.... Portland is now under Antifa terrorist control just like Beirut, parts of Iraq, Syria and West Africa. WHERE IN THE HELL IS SESSIONS AND THE DOJ...????
At this point, if the mayor isn't going to order the police to protect civilians from Antifa, I think at the very least, Portland ought to send out an emergency alert warning people away from an Antifa gathering. Antifa acts like they own downtown, Pioneer Square and the Transit Centers. Normal people are scared for their lives. Business owners are scared too. The damn mayor consistently tells the police to "stand down." He should be tarred and feathered...
This is the America, that Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats want for YOU. Harassment, Intimidation and Violence.

The State Department regularly lists areas that are dangerous or at least, risky to Americans when they travel abroad. The State Department needs to include Portland in their listing, citing the reasons. Perhaps it's time to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, send in federal troops and drag away the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police, with additional orders to use whatever force is necessary to reign in the leftist-loonies.

That sounds so very Trumpian.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Anarchy In Portland: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)​

ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)
There was pure anarchy in the streets of Portland over the weekend, as Antifa took over directing traffic and harassed elderly motorists.
Portland has one of the largest and most active populations of Antifa members in the United States.
On Saturday, a group of the violent far-left extremists took over directing traffic in the city without the city stepping in to keep the peace and protect drivers.
“You’re a whitey, aren’t ya! Get the f*** down the road!” the leftists scream at a motorist.
The vulgar and violent group noticed North Carolina plates on a vehicle and began shouting at the couple in the car saying that they are white supremacists. They shouted at multiple drivers threatening to “beat their ass.”



~~~~~~
Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats aka DSA are proud of their shows of Anarchy and violence in the streets. This is what they want for America. I guess it takes longer for the PPD to get back from their weed break so they let #Antifa take over routine duties like traffic control.
We now have what is DEFINED AS TERRORISM.... Portland is now under Antifa terrorist control just like Beirut, parts of Iraq, Syria and West Africa. WHERE IN THE HELL IS SESSIONS AND THE DOJ...????
At this point, if the mayor isn't going to order the police to protect civilians from Antifa, I think at the very least, Portland ought to send out an emergency alert warning people away from an Antifa gathering. Antifa acts like they own downtown, Pioneer Square and the Transit Centers. Normal people are scared for their lives. Business owners are scared too. The damn mayor consistently tells the police to "stand down." He should be tarred and feathered...
This is the America, that Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats want for YOU. Harassment, Intimidation and Violence.

The State Department regularly lists areas that are dangerous or at least, risky to Americans when they travel abroad. The State Department needs to include Portland in their listing, citing the reasons. Perhaps it's time to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, send in federal troops and drag away the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police, with additional orders to use whatever force is necessary to reign in the leftist-loonies.

That sounds so very Trumpian.

And the leftist loonies are so very much the mob rule and intimidation mentality.

 

[2aguy]

No.....the racists stayed in the democrat party....

So, just to be clear, I cited an academic article published in a flagship economics journal which uses a variety of well-respected empirical data sources to investigate the transition of southern voters out of the Democratic party. You obviously didn't bother to even click the link. Instead, you cited the defunct website of some random guy you found on the internet who isn't even addressing the correct topic, which is not about Nixon, nor even about the "southern strategy" at all.

Here's what the authors of the article I cited say (emphases mine):

As illustrated in Figure 1, at mid-century white Southerners (defined throughout as residents of the 11 states of the former Confederacy) were 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats than were other whites. This advantage has since flipped in sign, with the most dramatic losses occurring during the 1960s. Despite the massive, concurrent enfranchisement of Southern blacks, who overwhelmingly favored the Democrats from 1964 onward, the resulting shifts in aggregate Southern political outcomes have been stark: to take but one example, in 1960, all US senators from the South were Democrats, whereas today all but 4 (of 22) are Republican.

As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the party’s advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.

On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern “dealignment” from the Democratic Party.

That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey ques-tions on racial attitudes, from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s, have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey (GSS), another commonly used dataset on Americans’ political and social views, begins in 1972.

In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents “Between now and ... [election]... there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?” Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having “racially conservative views.”

Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously “lost the South” with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations, as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.

Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic Party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958–1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.
​

That's a long quotation, but the point is the authors are connecting the southern realignment with Democratic support for civil rights in the 60s, rather than anything having to do with Nixon.

To be perfectly honest, I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are arguing in good faith, but I find it really difficult to believe that anyone actually believes that the Democratic party in 2018 represents the interests of white nationalists, despite the fact that literally all white nationalist groups oppose the Democratic party and support far right-wing candidates. It seems more likely to be some kind of trolling. In any case, the history is pretty interesting, and it's a well written article that's worth a read, for anyone actually interested.

​

Sorry.....a left wing trio of professors just demonstrated that papers like this are crap....

The democrat leadership only supported civil rights because they knew they needed the black vote....and a paper by left wing academics carries little weight in reality or facts.......

Sorry, not buying it......

In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s.

And they weave their myths....

 

[BULLDOG]

Anarchy In Portland: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)​

ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists (VIDEO)
There was pure anarchy in the streets of Portland over the weekend, as Antifa took over directing traffic and harassed elderly motorists.
Portland has one of the largest and most active populations of Antifa members in the United States.
On Saturday, a group of the violent far-left extremists took over directing traffic in the city without the city stepping in to keep the peace and protect drivers.
“You’re a whitey, aren’t ya! Get the f*** down the road!” the leftists scream at a motorist.
The vulgar and violent group noticed North Carolina plates on a vehicle and began shouting at the couple in the car saying that they are white supremacists. They shouted at multiple drivers threatening to “beat their ass.”



~~~~~~
Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats aka DSA are proud of their shows of Anarchy and violence in the streets. This is what they want for America. I guess it takes longer for the PPD to get back from their weed break so they let #Antifa take over routine duties like traffic control.
We now have what is DEFINED AS TERRORISM.... Portland is now under Antifa terrorist control just like Beirut, parts of Iraq, Syria and West Africa. WHERE IN THE HELL IS SESSIONS AND THE DOJ...????
At this point, if the mayor isn't going to order the police to protect civilians from Antifa, I think at the very least, Portland ought to send out an emergency alert warning people away from an Antifa gathering. Antifa acts like they own downtown, Pioneer Square and the Transit Centers. Normal people are scared for their lives. Business owners are scared too. The damn mayor consistently tells the police to "stand down." He should be tarred and feathered...
This is the America, that Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats want for YOU. Harassment, Intimidation and Violence.

The State Department regularly lists areas that are dangerous or at least, risky to Americans when they travel abroad. The State Department needs to include Portland in their listing, citing the reasons. Perhaps it's time to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, send in federal troops and drag away the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police, with additional orders to use whatever force is necessary to reign in the leftist-loonies.

That sounds so very Trumpian.

And the leftist loonies are so very much the mob rule and intimidation mentality.

Not true, but Alex Jones will be proud of you for spouting that.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I wonder whether he (?) would bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Under actual Communist rule, someone like him would be hauled away to a gulag, never to be seen again.

 

[2aguy]

No.....the racists stayed in the democrat party....

So, just to be clear, I cited an academic article published in a flagship economics journal which uses a variety of well-respected empirical data sources to investigate the transition of southern voters out of the Democratic party. You obviously didn't bother to even click the link. Instead, you cited the defunct website of some random guy you found on the internet who isn't even addressing the correct topic, which is not about Nixon, nor even about the "southern strategy" at all.

Here's what the authors of the article I cited say (emphases mine):

As illustrated in Figure 1, at mid-century white Southerners (defined throughout as residents of the 11 states of the former Confederacy) were 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats than were other whites. This advantage has since flipped in sign, with the most dramatic losses occurring during the 1960s. Despite the massive, concurrent enfranchisement of Southern blacks, who overwhelmingly favored the Democrats from 1964 onward, the resulting shifts in aggregate Southern political outcomes have been stark: to take but one example, in 1960, all US senators from the South were Democrats, whereas today all but 4 (of 22) are Republican.

As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats “lost” white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the party’s advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.

On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern “dealignment” from the Democratic Party.

That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey ques-tions on racial attitudes, from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s, have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey (GSS), another commonly used dataset on Americans’ political and social views, begins in 1972.

In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents “Between now and ... [election]... there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?” Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having “racially conservative views.”

Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously “lost the South” with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations, as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.

Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic Party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958–1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.
​

That's a long quotation, but the point is the authors are connecting the southern realignment with Democratic support for civil rights in the 60s, rather than anything having to do with Nixon.

To be perfectly honest, I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are arguing in good faith, but I find it really difficult to believe that anyone actually believes that the Democratic party in 2018 represents the interests of white nationalists, despite the fact that literally all white nationalist groups oppose the Democratic party and support far right-wing candidates. It seems more likely to be some kind of trolling. In any case, the history is pretty interesting, and it's a well written article that's worth a read, for anyone actually interested.

​

Considering that the Republicans were the party of Civil Rights, and remained so, this paper falls apart right there.....the democrats jumped on board at the last minute, when all the heavy lifting was done...

And as Dinesh D'souza points out, the majority of blacks jumped onto the democrat party because of FDR, ...

The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP

Why did blacks, who were once uniformly Republican, become as they are now almost uniformly Democratic? Why did the South, once the “solid South” of the Democratic Party, become the base of the Republican Party? No understanding of current politics is possible without answering these questions.

Progressives have put forward their answer, which is now conventional wisdom, trumpeted in the media and commonly invoked as if it were too obvious to require any proof. Even some Republicans believe it, as evidenced by RNC chairman Ken Mehlman going before the NAACP in 2005 and apologizing for the racist history of the Republican Party. In 2010, the first black chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, conceded the GOP’s supposed Southern Strategy had “alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”

You know you’ve got a powerful ideological indictment when even its targets are willing to make a confession. And what is this indictment? Its essence can be expressed in a few key propositions. The parties switched platforms, at least on the race issue. This big switch was brought about in the late 1960s by the GOP, which under the leadership of Richard Nixon employed an infamous “Southern strategy” based on an appeal to racism and white supremacy.


The racist wing of the Democratic Party—the so-called Dixiecrats—responded by switching allegiances and becoming Republicans. Meanwhile, the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson pushed through the signature civil rights laws. So the Democrats, once the party of racism, became the party of civil rights, and the GOP, once the party of Lincoln and emancipation, became the new home of bigotry and white supremacy.

There is no limit to the number of articles chanting this progressive tune. “The Southern Strategy was the original tune that made Donald Trump possible,” Jeet Heer writes in the New Republic. Heer contends that while the GOP has relied for decades on “coded appeals to racism,” or what Heer terms “winking racism,” Trump with his overt racism is the party’s “true heir, the beneficiary of the policies the party has pursued for more than half a century.”
-------

Here I give the surprising answer to that question. The data show that blacks did not switch from the Republicans to the Democrats in the 1960s. They did not do it because of civil rights. Rather, a majority of blacks became Democrats in the 1930s. This was at a time when the Democratic Party was manifestly the party of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. FDR, who got less than one-third of the black vote in 1932, got 75 percent of the black vote in 1936.

Why would blacks leave the party of emancipation and resistance to segregation and lynching and join the party of bigotry and white supremacy? The depressing answer is that blacks did it in exchange for the crumbs that they got from FDR’s New Deal. We have seen earlier how FDR designed the New Deal to exclude African-Americans and preserve Jim Crow. How delighted and amused FDR must have been to see blacks coming over to his camp even as his administration worked closely with racist Democrats to screw them over.

It should be noted, in mitigation of this horrible decision on the part of African Americans—and it was a horrible decision—that conditions for blacks during the Great Depression were almost inconceivably bad. Historian Ira Katznelson points out that median black family income was around $500 a month, which means most blacks lived at subsistence level without electricity, hot water, refrigeration, adequate plumbing or gas for cooking. “Under these circumstances,” Katznelson writes, New Deal benefits “limited though they were” and “however discriminatory” still offered some relief and solace to a “desperate population.”
----------

The first problem with this Southern Strategy tale is that progressives have never been able to provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch by Richard Nixon at any time in his long career. One might expect that a racist appeal to Deep South racists would actually have to be made and to be understood as such. Yet quite evidently none was.

The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the war in Vietnam and, closely related, the antiwar movement in the United States.

Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-Communist, law-and-order platform. While embracing the welfare state—Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues—he also railed against what he termed the “excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.” Some progressives contend that while not explicitly racist, Nixon’s campaign themes reflected a covert or hidden racism. Nixon was supposedly sending “coded” messages to Deep South racists, speaking as if through a political “dog whistle.”
-------

Consider Nixon’s famous law and order platform which is routinely treated as a racist dog whistle. Now a call for law and order is not inherently racist, and this theme from Nixon resonated not merely in the South but throughout the country. It should be noted that Nixon’s law and order argument was directly not merely at black rioters but also at mostly white violent antiwar protesters. Nixon condemned the Black Panthers but also the Weather Underground, led by a man whom I’ve subsequently debated, Bill Ayers, and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. Last time I checked, both of them were white.

What of Nixon’s supporters? Were they stereotypical segregationist bigots? The left-wing historian Kevin Kruse thinks so. Kruse portrays as racist the phenomenon of “white flight,” which refers to middle-class whites moving out of the crime-ridden inner cities to move to the suburbs. Kruse terms this the politics of “suburban secession,” a deliberate invocation of the Confederacy itself, as if whites were “seceding” from the cities and establishing their own white nation in the suburbs.

Yet Kruse conveniently omits the equivalent phenomenon of “black flight,” which refers to middle-class blacks doing the same thing as soon as they acquired the means to move to safer neighborhoods. Witness today the prosperous black suburbs of Washington D.C., heavily populated with both whites and blacks who got out of the city. Does it make any sense to call all these people bigots? No. Wouldn’t Kruse himself do the same thing for the safety of his family? Of course he would.