At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off

[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.

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

Go away....

get some coffee, sober up.

Oh I see. So you aren't defending the white nationalists and you do think they are racists.

You just felt like talking about all sharpton and Jesse Jackson instead.

Got it.

 

[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.

Oh I see. So you aren't defending the white nationalists and you do think they are racists.

You just felt like talking about all sharpton and Jesse Jackson instead.

Got it.

Someone back along the line stated something about the 'party of racists'.

I was pointing out that BOTH parties have racists, and they are of various colors.

Do I need to be like your teacher, and use handpuppets to get that point across?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.!

How much more full of shitness can we expect coming from you? To call Gavin McGinis a racist is laughable. The Democrat Party is full of kooks who would have America overrun by the hordes invading Europe if they could figure out a way to get them to Mexico. I pray you people have overplayed your hand thinking America wants socialism. You're going to get curb-stomped in 2020's election.

 

[Muhammed]

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 owned slaves fer crissakes. And you are ignoring the fact that Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act and Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights act, did so for entirely different reasons. The Republicans who opposed the CRA did so because they saw it as undermining the bill of rights, specifically the 10th amendment. They saw it as federal government overreach.

On the other hand, the Democrats who opposed the CRA were simply against blacks having equal rights, period.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Oh I see. So you aren't defending the white nationalists and you do think they are racists.

You just felt like talking about all sharpton and Jesse Jackson instead.

Got it.

Someone back along the line stated something about the 'party of racists'.

I was pointing out that BOTH parties have racists, and they are of various colors.

Do I need to be like your teacher, and use handpuppets to get that point across?

Right..like I said, you do think they are racists, and you are not defending them. Lighten up .

 

[Preacher]

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.!

You DO realize Malkin is Asian right? And the Proud Boys are a MULTI RACIAL group of guys,you do get that correct? I doubt it but meh don't care. More Anti White racism from the usual suspects.

 

[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.

That is just to fucking stupid and dishonest to bother with

That’s what I think of your post.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First of all, I didn't say anything about left wing racism, I said "left wing intolerance". Secondly, The cases of the Covington kids and the guy punching out the conservative at U.C. Berkeley and those of liberals confronting and assaulting conservatives wearing MAGA hats is proof enough that there are some on the left who are intolerant.

As a lefty, I'm intolerant of is intolerance, stupidity and those who would destroy everything that this country once stood for.. If you said "intolerance" instead of racism, then what did you mean? Intolerance of policies that marginalize and discriminate against minorities, policies that go against out tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees? Intolerance for policies that cater to the wealthy and screw the rest of us? Policies that would destroy the environment and the quality of like for those who come after us, for short term corporate profit? You are god damned right I'm intolerant.

Intolerance of conservatives, what else?

Conservatives are intolerant of killing unborn children; putting illegal aliens ahead of American citizens; treating veterans like stepchildren; thinking they can spite the law and harass and assault conservatives in public with impunity because they think a fucking hat makes them a nazi. etc., etc. So what? Democrats don't have the moral high ground and they certainly don't have a monopoly on moral indignation. It's all just just differences of opinion.

Oh, and what I recall is the kid in the MAGA hat staring down a Native American

Did you also happen to notice that the kid in the MAGA hat was minding his own business and the Native American approached him beating his drum in the kid's face?

You just don't get it. The facts of that particular incident are thus: The Covington kids had attended a rally and were waiting for their bus. The Black Israelites had already been there for some time berating everyone that passed by.
The worst of the invective was directed at the Covington kids later but throughout the video they are heard calling a Native American an "Uncle Tomahawk", another black man as "Dumb ass ni**er" and "Stupid ass ni**er". They referred to the Covington kids variously as "Peckerwoods", "Child molesting fa**ots", "Dirty ass crackers", "Dirty animals", "Demons" and other choice euphamisms.

Then Phillips comes along from nowhere and approaches the Covington kids beating his drum. Sandmann is standing there and smiling because - well, what else was he going to do?

Phillips has given numerous interviews and has contradicted himself on why he approached them. In one interview he claimed to be trying to get to the Lincoln Memorial but the video plainly shows him walking right past a clear way up the steps to confront the boys. In another interview he said he was trying to defuse the situation. The question is, why did he approach them if he was trying to defuse the situation? The Black Israelites had been there all afternoon hectoring everybody, including the Covington kids. So why didn't he try to defuse them?

Phillips approached them when he had no business doing so and then gives conflicting accounts of what happened. He's full of shit. I don't care who you are, you don't get a free pass on rudeness because you're offended by a hat or because you're elderly or a veteran or even a Native American.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Nothing stunning about it. Far right conservatives and moderate conservatives have a lot of the same goals and ideals. But at the point where conservatism comes up against racism, this is where we diverge. If you think our sharing some ideals such as wanting secure borders includes racism or wanting a wall to keep out Mexicans then you're a fucking idiot.

Again, we want secure borders as well, but don't try to tell me that the pathological obsession of Trump and his minions isn't motivated by racism and xenophobia

I categorically deny it.

Trump is merely trying to enforce the immigration laws we already have.

 

[blackhawk]

The Democrats can't even find the courage to condemn one of their own for their anti-semitic comments so given that the left loses the right label anyone else extermist. Clean up your own house before telling someone else how dirty there's is.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Some Democrats do want open borders and this is a fact.

That is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. Name those democrats .

Farhad Manjoo for one. He's a reporter with the New York Times and has written an article in favor of open borders. See below:

Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

There's also a Jeffery Miron who wrote an article for USA Today in favor of open borders. See below:

Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders

Then there's a Bryan Caplan - an economist at George Mason University - who is an advocate for open borders.

I'm sure I can find others but I think you get the idea.

Even if what you say is true that Democrats in general don't want open borders, at the very least I think we can say that they are much softer on the issue. To the point that anyone who says we need more secure borders is automatically labeled racist. And if they are in favor of a wall? Forget about it. You might as well call him a child molester.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My citing open borders is just an example. Even if we compare the prevailing moderate Democrat views about illegal immigration with the prevailing Republican view on illegal immigration, there is still a decided difference between the two. To make matters worse, even moderate Democrats are accusing those moderate Republicans who support more secure borders and more stringent border control as being racist.

Many Republicans are racist starting with the demented orange ogre in the white house.

And?

Yes there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. We want this to be an inclusive welcoming nation and we are not afraid of diversity and, in fact value it. We recognize the fact that this is a country of immigrants who have contributed much to what America is. I am old enough to remember when Italians and the Irish were feared and loathed as immigrants. My mothers parents came from Italy soon after the turn of the 20th century and she was born 12 years later. She recalled how she was called the N word because she was a little on the dark side, and that traumatized her for life.[/quote]

I want this to be an inclusive and welcoming nation too. I just think they should come here legally.

The same kid of hatred is not being inflicted on Latinos and Muslims. History does repeat itself but it wont be kind to you people.

Who's "you people"?

You can't preserve this county as a white Christian majority. That ship has sailed. And as a white guy, I'm just fine with that. Those who are threatened by that have personal identity issues that they need to seek help with.

Why are you telling me this? Have I somehow given you the impression I want to preserve this county as a white Christian majority?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.!

When the Communist Party USA proudly flies the Hammer and Sickle at the Democratic Party convention will you write several paragraphs in condemnation. Of course not, no Democrat has in the past why start now.

 

[sparky]

When the Communist Party USA proudly flies the Hammer and Sickle at the Democratic Party convention will you write several paragraphs in condemnation.

I'd condemn any celebration of extreemism.

Which is what this CPAC is all about

Moving the goal posts

~S~

 

[Correll]

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?

It is interesting that you equate insulting some one with being insulted.


That is just the type of moronic and twisted "thinking" that you libs use on everything. Which is why you are libs.


You accused me of a lot of shit in your post. You made no effort to support any of it.


Because that concept is alien to you. More and more, I've been running into liberals that think that the way to support an accusation of racism, is to call the person a racist AGAIN.


You are all fucking assholes, and so dim, that you think that the fact that people are pissed off at you, is something wrong with US.

 

[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 owned slaves fer crissakes. And you are ignoring the fact that Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act and Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights act, did so for entirely different reasons. The Republicans who opposed the CRA did so because they saw it as undermining the bill of rights, specifically the 10th amendment. They saw it as federal government overreach.

On the other hand, the Democrats who opposed the CRA were simply against blacks having equal rights, period.

Same horseshit Different day. See post #10 At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump is merely trying to enforce the immigration laws we already have.

Haha...no. Trump is merely trying to garner praise and applause from a bunch of gullible marks.

 

[Correll]

[....

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

....
~S~

This is the only point you actually made, so I will just address this.


Ok so, everyone you accuse of racism, denies it, racist and not racists alike.


So, what next, accuser? Can you support your accusations? Or do you just want to make some more unsupported accusations?



Because what I see here, is that you want, as a liberal, the right to just smear anyone you want as a "Racist" without having to back up the shit you spew from your face anus.


Tell me what part is wrong with that conclusion. If you can. And I know you can't.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Some Democrats do want open borders and this is a fact.

That is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. Name those democrats .

Farhad Manjoo for one. He's a reporter with the New York Times and has written an article in favor of open borders. See below:

Opinion | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

There's also a Jeffery Miron who wrote an article for USA Today in favor of open borders. See below:

Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders

Then there's a Bryan Caplan - an economist at George Mason University - who is an advocate for open borders.

I'm sure I can find others but I think you get the idea.

Even if what you say is true that Democrats in general don't want open borders, at the very least I think we can say that they are much softer on the issue. To the point that anyone who says we need more secure borders is automatically labeled racist. And if they are in favor of a wall? Forget about it. You might as well call him a child molester.

Ok so here we have a couple of people who identify as democrats who advocate for open borders. However, that hardly justifies the incessant bleating on the part of those on the right that "democrats want open borders. " I do not. Are we softer on the issue? That depends on what you mean by soft. If it means give refugees a fair shot at asylum, or dreamers a path to citizenship, then I suppose so. And no, we do not automatically label those who want secure borders as racist.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Trump is merely trying to enforce the immigration laws we already have.

Haha...no. Trump is merely trying to garner praise and applause from a bunch of gullible marks.

Yay, yay, so you say...