At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. Are you seriously prepared to debate Japanese Internment? Start by including the points that Malkin made in favor of it, and why you think they are wrong.

I did not pay attention to what that piece of shit said, and I am not going to allow you to give me a homework assignment or derail this thread with that horseshit.

 

[Rustic]

It is becoming more and more apparent that the Republican Party is irredeemable. They have lost all sense of decency and compassion and are on the wrong side of every issue. As people should be judged by the company they keep, so should be a political party. The past weekends Conservative Political Action Conference bears that out

At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off | HuffPost

"The annual conference served as yet another reminder of how the conservative movement in America is joined at the hip with the white nationalist movement."

Selected excerpts:

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — In 2004, far-right activist Michelle Malkin published a racist book called “In Defense of Internment.” It argued that the United States was right to forcibly remove 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry from their homes during World War II — 70 percent of whom were American citizens — and place them in internment camps for years, where they often lived behind barbed-wire fences under the watch of armed guards.

Malkin — who, it bears repeating, wrote a book that defended putting an ethnic group in government internment camps — told the crowd that current immigration levels amount to an “invasion” that “endangers our general welfare and the blessings of liberty.”

Among those whom Malkin listed as on the “front lines for liberty” were Gavin McInnes, the racist and anti-Semitic founder of the violent neofascist gang the Proud Boys; Laura Loomer, the anti-Muslim activist and InfoWars conspiracy theorist; and the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant group founded by a eugenicist.

Then there is this guy

Brimelow — a racist who has said “Hispanics do specialize in rape” — runs the hate site VDare.com, named for Virginia Dare, said to be the first white baby born in the so-called New World. He has regularly published the work of anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers, including big-name white supremacists like Richard Spencer. He has also published the writing of Malkin.

As well as:

Malkin gave an interview at CPAC to VDare. The interviewer was Faith Goldy, a white nationalist who has appeared on the podcast of The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that advocates for gassing Jews. Goldy has also recited the “14 words,” a white supremacist mantra.

On Thursday, the young white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes, who attended the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, lurked outside CPAC with a pack of cronies dressed in suits, most of whom were apparently unable to get inside the conference. The next day, however, Playboy reporter Alex Thomas spotted Fuentes inside the conference, wearing a CPAC badge.

There is much more but you get the idea! This is not traditional conservatism. This is hate and bigotry through and through. And the President of the United States spoke there and basked in the love. Let that sink in.!

 

[mamooth]

Democrats have urban slave plantations and you criticize Republicans? Lol

That's patronizing racism on your part, saying blacks let themselves be kept on plantations.

That's why you lose all the black vote. And when they do vote Democratic, you throw out more racism and say all blacks are stupid, thus continuing the cycle.

 

[mamooth]

Id say its more accurate to say that there are racist people in both parties, but neither party is racist itself, though the left does race bait a lot, but that isnt exactly racism.

Republicans use race-baiting and identity politics far more than Democrats. Republicans rely almost entirely on "White Christians are victims!" identity politics, while identity politics is only a small part of Democratic appeals.

 

[Correll]

2. Are you seriously prepared to debate Japanese Internment? Start by including the points that Malkin made in favor of it, and why you think they are wrong.

I did not pay attention to what that piece of shit said, and I am not going to allow you to give me a homework assignment or derail this thread with that horseshit.

It was the only thing I saw that could reasonable be an attempt to support your claim of "extremists".


I can see that supporting your claim, is an alien concept to you.


THis is common for liberals.



Would you like to admit that your entire op was simply bs, or would you like to try to support your claim?


Hint: Calling me a racist is not a supporting argument. I know that is hard for you libs to believe, but it is true. Trust me on this.

 

[mamooth]

I dare you to go a day without calling someone a racist.

DO you think you could do that, and survive?

We all know you couldn't go a day without whining about being called out for being a racist. You need your victimhood fix regularly, and you need to deflect from your racism.

You suck the asses of the openly racist Proud Boys. We call you on it. You get triggered. We laugh, hard. Besides crying, what do you plan to do about it?

I'll make a deal. If you stop sucking the asses of racists, I'll stop pointing out you suck the asses of racists.

So, why do you suck the asses of racists? What joy do you derive joy from sucking the asses of racists? What motivates your ass sucking?

 

[sparky]

1. The Proud Boys are not neofascist nor racist, nor anti-semitic. They have employed violence in self defense. Traditionally, AMERICANS, have supported that.

Nope.....waaaAAAAyyyyy wrong

History does repeat itself but it wont be kind to you people. You can't preserve this county as a white Christian majority. That ship has sailed.

They'll never quit PP

I know many of you believe that calling someone a racist, is a supporting argument, and to prove it, you can call people racist, AGAIN.

For you to simply deny it.....? I got news for you, racists never admit they're racists

Republicans use race-baiting and identity politics far more than Democrats

quite effectively at that
~S~

 

[Jitss617]

Democrats have urban slave plantations and you criticize Republicans? Lol

That's patronizing racism on your part, saying blacks let themselves be kept on plantations.

That's why you lose all the black vote. And when they do vote Democratic, you throw out more racism and say all blacks are stupid, thus continuing the cycle.

Well in 1964 94% of blacks voted democrat, the party of the kkk, Jim Crow, and Dixiecrats .. I mean slavery is comple and if you disagree look how you democrats treat blacks that vote for trump, you almost lynched Candice Owens last summer.

 

[Leo123]

Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?

Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.


In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.



Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

S

oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights


As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

View attachment 248749

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 248750

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

Democrats are currently the only party concerned with skin color. They are indeed racist.

 

[mamooth]

Well in 1964 94% of blacks voted democrat, the party of the kkk, Jim Crow, and Dixiecrats ..

All the dixiecrats became Republicans. All the racists went to your side, so you now own that racist history.

I mean slavery is comple

No, it's not. Slavery is when people own people. The Confederates that you worship were slavers. Your party still openly adores slavers. Ours doesn't.

and if you disagree look how you democrats treat blacks that vote for trump,

Disagreeing with someone is making them slaves? No. People owning people is slavery. What about that confuses you so?

you almost lynched Candice Owens last summer.

Please describe the details of this lynching. What violence occurred?

 

[lantern2814]

So can sparky or regressive pervert show us any videos of Proud Boys starting violence? No, laying out your Antifa friends after they attack is not starting violence.
2) no, this country will not bend over and give you sick demented mentally ill people control. Keep your deviant sexual practices at home and quit trying to indoctrinate children.
3) more news sparky, you cry "racist" you better have something more than "I say you are" to back yourself up.
4) Republicans use identity garbage more than dimbos? Quite a fairy tale there.

The projection is strong with these two. Accuse others of being what you are. Another typical Dem play.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?

Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b

Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.


In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow

Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.



Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

S

oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights


As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

View attachment 248749

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 248750

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

Democrats are currently the only party concerned with skin color. They are indeed racist.

That is just to fucking stupid and dishonest to bother with

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

And you obviously don't find these white nationalists to be racists.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If a Democratic president had acted as addled as Trump did at CPAC, that president's administration would have invoked the 25th and removed that Democratic president from office.

It's a "country over party" thing, so Republicans wouldn't understand.

A Democrat president would never hug the American flag. I have to agree with that!

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

That is just to fucking stupid and dishonest to bother with

You mean "too".
To, too, two. Learn the difference educated progressive.

 

[Auld Phart]

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

And you obviously don't find these white nationalists to be racists.

Check under your computer desk....


I think your IQ just dropped another 50 points.


Or, you could try reading what I was responding to, and apologize.


(like that would ever happen)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

And you obviously don't find these white nationalists to be racists.

Check under your computer desk....


I think your IQ just dropped another 50 points.


Or, you could try reading what I was responding to, and apologize.


(like that would ever happen)

Oh look, wil's throwing another fit because someone treated him the way he treats everyone. Good of you to swoop in to defend the oppressed white nationalists, though. You seem to have plenty of company.

 

[Auld Phart]

He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist

And you obviously don't find these white nationalists to be racists.

Check under your computer desk....


I think your IQ just dropped another 50 points.


Or, you could try reading what I was responding to, and apologize.


(like that would ever happen)

Oh look, wil's throwing another fit because someone treated him the way he treats everyone. Good of you to swoop in to defend the oppressed white nationalists, though. You seem to have plenty of company.

yup, didn't bother to see what I responded to.

Go away....

get some coffee, sober up.

 

[Muhammed]

Both parties can be pretty racist.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.

Which Democrats have been hob knobbing with white Nationalists and neo Nazis? ? Which ones said that Hispanics specialize in rape? Please list them all

Dude, you are talking about the party of slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, the Trail of Tears, and concentration camps for Japs and Krauts.

Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party that you support has a very sordid history. That the Democratic party still exists is huge embarrassment to the USA.

 

[Godboy]

Id say its more accurate to say that there are racist people in both parties, but neither party is racist itself, though the left does race bait a lot, but that isnt exactly racism.

Republicans use race-baiting and identity politics far more than Democrats. Republicans rely almost entirely on "White Christians are victims!" identity politics, while identity politics is only a small part of Democratic appeals.

What an absurd statement.