Hillary Clinton: "Trump Has Given Encouragement And Rhetorical Support To The KKK"

[Steve_McGarrett]

To be fair, Byrd renounced the Klan ages ago and worked on behalf of civil rights for decades afterward, up until his death.

Not that it makes irrelevant Clinton's words any more meaningful. But let's not act like she was embracing a frothing racist here people.

David Duke is a civil rights advocate too.

 

[John Shaw]

To be fair, Byrd renounced the Klan ages ago and worked on behalf of civil rights for decades afterward, up until his death.

Not that it makes irrelevant Clinton's words any more meaningful. But let's not act like she was embracing a frothing racist here people.

David Duke is a civil rights advocate too.

HAHAHA

Wow. Hilarious.

 

[Political Junky]

Breaking Update!

American Patriot Steve McGarrett exposes Pogo as a Liar.

David Duke NEVER endorsed Donald Trump. The lying media, like Pogo want you to believe he did. At the time, Duke put out a statement but the media wouldn't report it.

From his own words!

>> “This represents a turning point for the people of this country,” said Duke in video uploaded to Twitter by Indianapolis Star photojournalist Mykal McEldowney. “We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump. Because he said he’s going to take our country back. That’s what we gotta do.” << -- Ex Klan Klown Dukey says White Supremacists Will Fulfill Rump's Promises
>> Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is calling Donald Trump's electoral victory "one of the most exciting nights of my life."

Duke, a white nationalist who unsuccessfully ran for Louisiana Senate, tweeted early Wednesday that his supporters played a major part in paving Trump's road to the presidency.


"Make no mistake about it, our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!" he wrote.<< --- Dukey: Rump Win is "A Great Victory For Our People"
​

Look McRacist --- he mentioned you on TV! They misspell the word Yuge though.

More....

>> Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is running for U.S. Senate and tells NPR that he believes he'll be getting the votes of Donald Trump supporters.

And he reiterated his own support for Trump, saying he's "100 percent behind" the Republican presidential candidate's agenda.


"As a United States senator, nobody will be more supportive of his legislative agenda, his Supreme Court agenda, than I will," Duke said. << -- Dukey says "Of Course" Rumpbots Are His Own Bots


Dukey can endorse anybody he likes and there's nothing Rump can do about it other than stammer "I know nothing". That doesn't make Rump guilty by association. But you're the kkklown who opened this very thread with an Association Fallacy, so fall on your own sword.

---- or are you admitting that the whole premise for this thread always was bullshit?

/thread

You Lied! Steve McGarrett destroyed your credibility! One more time! David Duke NEVER endorsed Donald Trump. In his own words:

David Duke Responds To CNN LIE. I Never endorsed Trump

Already quoted three times, McKlan. You lose. And by the way that guy back in your OP (Byrd) repudiated the Klan. Yet one counts and the other doesn't? **** you and everybody who hypocrites like you.

Your entire thread premise is bullshit. Always was.

As an American Patriot blessed by God with White Privilege, I only post the truth! You said David Duke endorsed Donald Trump. Once again, I expose you as a Liar. David Duke will verify you're a liar in his own words, liar!

"Liar"? You want "liar"? Roll tape.

There was another Democrat Senator from South Carolina who was in the Klan also. Can't think of his name at this moment though.
Strom Thurman I think?

You'd be correct! He served 48 years in the Senate which was surpassed by Robert Byrd.

He is "correct" huh?

Link?

Here, to be fair maybe this will help...

Thurmond first came to prominent office in 1946 when he was elected governor. Two years after the Klan officially dissolved Oops, maybe that doesn't help.

After trying to run for President with his own breakaway party in 1948, he first got into the Senate in 1952 --- as a write-in, because the state Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot.

That at least establishes your 48 years.

Watcha got, McDuncecap?

Trent Lott got his ass handed to him for saying if Thurman had been elected president we wouldn't have all these problems.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Byrd repudiated the KKK before most of you rightwing nuts were housebroke.

 

[Pogo]

And yet, she eulogized the former Grand Kleagle and Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, her mentor, Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton:

"Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility. It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not only its longest serving member. He was its heart, its soul, and it’s historian.”

Hillary Clinton: Trump ‘Has Given a Lot of Encouragement and Rhetorical Support’ to the KKK - Breitbart

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support the Democrats are another story.

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

 

[Redfish]

And yet, she eulogized the former Grand Kleagle and Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, her mentor, Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton:

"Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility. It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not only its longest serving member. He was its heart, its soul, and it’s historian.”

Hillary Clinton: Trump ‘Has Given a Lot of Encouragement and Rhetorical Support’ to the KKK - Breitbart

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support the Democrats are another story.

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

 

[Pogo]

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support the Democrats are another story.

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support the Democrats are another story.

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

they certainly claim to be an organization. they seem organized and manage to rally their minions to protest and destroy public and private property. They have called for the killing of cops and white people in general. I would classify them as a racist terrorist group.

You are free to label them as you choose, I don't give a shit what you think they are, their actions very clearly explain who and what they are.

 

[Pogo]

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

they certainly claim to be an organization. they seem organized and manage to rally their minions to protest and destroy public and private property. They have called for the killing of cops and white people in general. I would classify them as a racist terrorist group.

You are free to label them as you choose, I don't give a shit what you think they are, their actions very clearly explain who and what they are.

That makes two of us giving no shits. The quotation was about the Klan (as is the whole thread) and you're desperately trying to change the topic.

That's the sign of a lost argument. Or in this case lack of one.

 

[easyt65]

'Hillary Clinton: "Trump Has Given Encouragement And Rhetorical Support To The KKK'



'Nuff said.....

 

[Redfish]

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

they certainly claim to be an organization. they seem organized and manage to rally their minions to protest and destroy public and private property. They have called for the killing of cops and white people in general. I would classify them as a racist terrorist group.

You are free to label them as you choose, I don't give a shit what you think they are, their actions very clearly explain who and what they are.

That makes two of us giving no shits. The quotation was about the Klan (as is the whole thread) and you're desperately trying to change the topic.

That's the sign of a lost argument. Or in this case lack of one.

Nope, that's between you and another poster. I acknowledge that members of both parties were members of the KKK and were racists. That is merely history.

The problem is when we try to judge people of the past by today's standards of right and wrong.

The second problem is when one side or the other creates lies about the past in order to try to denigrate the opposition.

My goal here is always to find the truth, post it, expose the partisan liars (mostly leftists, but some conservatives), and judge today's politicians by their acts and words.

It just so happens that the leftists are easier to attack because they lie more, distort more, and have less credibility.

 

[Hossfly]

And yet, she eulogized the former Grand Kleagle and Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, her mentor, Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton:

"Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility. It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not only its longest serving member. He was its heart, its soul, and it’s historian.”

Hillary Clinton: Trump ‘Has Given a Lot of Encouragement and Rhetorical Support’ to the KKK - Breitbart

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

So? BFD. Hillary has supported the Devil since the day she was hatched.

 

[Pogo]

Nope, that's between you and another poster. I acknowledge that members of both parties were members of the KKK and were racists. That is merely history.

The problem is when we try to judge people of the past by today's standards of right and wrong.

Agree fully. Everything must be judged in its own context.

The second problem is when one side or the other creates lies about the past in order to try to denigrate the opposition.

Again agreed. That's why I blew up the poster's mythology about "no prominent Republican". He was engaging in Composition Fallacy, the same fallacy that brings us "Democrats founded the KKK" and the photoshopped pics of Robert Byrd and "Hitler was a leftist" and myriad others including another one mentioned here that some KKKlown in Kalifornia endorsed Clinton "therefore Hillary is associated with Klan" or some shit*.

So when the poster tried to have it both ways I put up the stop sign, with irrefutable examples. SEEING these examples, the poster is then forced to abandon said Composition Fallacy and revert to either honest argument or, more likely, some other fallacy.

Presumably that's also where you were going with the "BLM/Ö'bama"** jazz -- another Composition Fallacy. BLM is neither my area of expertise, nor the topic, so we demurred.

My goal here is always to find the truth, post it, expose the partisan liars (mostly leftists, but some conservatives), and judge today's politicians by their acts and words.

It just so happens that the leftists are easier to attack because they lie more, distort more, and have less credibility.

Other than the term "leftists" that's my goal here too -- honest argument. Always has been.


* actually the "Klan endorsed Clinton" play is a double Composition Fallacy as it wants a single ad hoc Klanner playing dress-up to represent a collective called "the Klan" (which does not exist), plus it wants "Clinton" to represent the quality of "Democrat".

**postscript -- the umlaut over O'bama's name was a typo but it's funny so I'm leaving it.

 

[Political Junky]

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support the Democrats are another story.

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

Stephenson murdered that poor woman .. raping and beating her.

 

[Pogo]

Already debunked with multiple examples. See post 18.

Here's a supplement:

​

Oh yeah there was that one time in the 1920's, in Indiana but then there was the rest of the country and all that time before and after when the KKK was the militant arm of the Democratic party and enjoyed its most popular support under said party.

"That one time in Indiana"

-- and Maine.
And California.
And Colorado.
And Kansas.
And Oregon.
We need not even count David Dukey.

Brewster was around for quite a while. Governor, Senator, Congressman and eventually close ally of Joe McCarthy.

The fact is, for the 89,735,155th time, the Klan supported (or opposed) anybody who furthered its interests (or opposed them) including the no-party guy back in post 18. Democrat here, Republican there, whatever worked. And at that time of the early 20th century they had influence enough that it was risky to oppose them. Just ask Oscar Underwood. That's why the Klan backed Calvin Coolidge -- who didn't seek or accept Klan support but was the only major candidate who didn't publicly denounce them.


Roll tape.

Bullshit, no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support

I'd say Governors and Senators are "prominent politicians" wouldn't you? Consider these Presidents:
O'bama
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Kennedy
Truman
FDR

--- each a former Governor or Senator.

So a politician "accepts" the support of a radical group if that group says it supports that politician?

Not at all. The Klan for instance supported both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover but I'm not aware of either of them "accepting" that support.

But the examples I gave above --- Brewster and Baker and Jackson and Means and Morley and Paulen --- very much did.


Hell, D.C. Stephenson had the whole state of Indiana wrapped around the Klan finger, right up to the Governor. Check out his 'black boxes'...

​

The quote, once again, was "no prominent Republican politician has ever supported the klan or accepted their support" -- all of the Republicans above did just that. Morley at the least was an actual member of it.

So --- that got done.
You know that TV show "Mythbusters"? That's what I do here.

You, as usual, are being disingenuous on this thread. Obama "accepted" the support of BLM a racist terrorist organization, even invited them to the whitehouse. Why aren't you on his case for that? Answer: because you are a political hack.

I don't know that that premise is by any stretch true. I don't know that "BLM" is even an organization. Nor do you.

Stephenson murdered that poor woman .. raping and beating her.

And even chewing her up. He was a monster.

Thankfully the publicity from that incident dealt a bigly blow to the Klan's influence, although it didn't kill it.

 

[Redfish]

Nope, that's between you and another poster. I acknowledge that members of both parties were members of the KKK and were racists. That is merely history.

The problem is when we try to judge people of the past by today's standards of right and wrong.

Agree fully. Everything must be judged in its own context.

The second problem is when one side or the other creates lies about the past in order to try to denigrate the opposition.

Again agreed. That's why I blew up the poster's mythology about "no prominent Republican". He was engaging in Composition Fallacy, the same fallacy that brings us "Democrats founded the KKK" and the photoshopped pics of Robert Byrd and "Hitler was a leftist" and myriad others including another one mentioned here that some KKKlown in Kalifornia endorsed Clinton "therefore Hillary is associated with Klan" or some shit*.

So when the poster tried to have it both ways I put up the stop sign, with irrefutable examples. SEEING these examples, the poster is then forced to abandon said Composition Fallacy and revert to either honest argument or, more likely, some other fallacy.

Presumably that's also where you were going with the "BLM/Ö'bama"** jazz -- another Composition Fallacy. BLM is neither my area of expertise, nor the topic, so we demurred.

My goal here is always to find the truth, post it, expose the partisan liars (mostly leftists, but some conservatives), and judge today's politicians by their acts and words.

It just so happens that the leftists are easier to attack because they lie more, distort more, and have less credibility.

Other than the term "leftists" that's my goal here too -- honest argument. Always has been.


* actually the "Klan endorsed Clinton" play is a double Composition Fallacy as it wants a single ad hoc Klanner playing dress-up to represent a collective called "the Klan" (which does not exist), plus it wants "Clinton" to represent the quality of "Democrat".

**postscript -- the umlaut over O'bama's name was a typo but it's funny so I'm leaving it.

We are on the same page 98%. It is fact that Obama (O'Bama) invited BLM to the whitehouse and treated them like a legitimate organization. It is also fact that BLM is highly racist, has called for the murder of cops, and has called for the murder of all white people. So, lets be truthful about everything, shall we?

 

[Crixus]

And yet, she eulogized the former Grand Kleagle and Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, her mentor, Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton:

"Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility. It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not only its longest serving member. He was its heart, its soul, and it’s historian.”

Hillary Clinton: Trump ‘Has Given a Lot of Encouragement and Rhetorical Support’ to the KKK - Breitbart

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

So. Then I upwards was almost 200 years ago and the democrat party made hash out of it/ until talk came to pointing out the democrat parties long history with the Klan from the time they invented it to now.

 

[jknowgood]

And yet, she eulogized the former Grand Kleagle and Cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, her mentor, Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton:

"Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility. It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not only its longest serving member. He was its heart, its soul, and it’s historian.”

Hillary Clinton: Trump ‘Has Given a Lot of Encouragement and Rhetorical Support’ to the KKK - Breitbart

Byrd belonged to the klan 75 years ago and long ago renounced it

The klan supports Republicans TODAY and republicans refuse to renounce it

Refuse to renounce the KKK? Are you on acid?

You voted for Trump......so did the KKK

So your saying no kkk members voted for Hillary?

 

[Pogo]

Nope, that's between you and another poster. I acknowledge that members of both parties were members of the KKK and were racists. That is merely history.

The problem is when we try to judge people of the past by today's standards of right and wrong.

Agree fully. Everything must be judged in its own context.

The second problem is when one side or the other creates lies about the past in order to try to denigrate the opposition.

Again agreed. That's why I blew up the poster's mythology about "no prominent Republican". He was engaging in Composition Fallacy, the same fallacy that brings us "Democrats founded the KKK" and the photoshopped pics of Robert Byrd and "Hitler was a leftist" and myriad others including another one mentioned here that some KKKlown in Kalifornia endorsed Clinton "therefore Hillary is associated with Klan" or some shit*.

So when the poster tried to have it both ways I put up the stop sign, with irrefutable examples. SEEING these examples, the poster is then forced to abandon said Composition Fallacy and revert to either honest argument or, more likely, some other fallacy.

Presumably that's also where you were going with the "BLM/Ö'bama"** jazz -- another Composition Fallacy. BLM is neither my area of expertise, nor the topic, so we demurred.

My goal here is always to find the truth, post it, expose the partisan liars (mostly leftists, but some conservatives), and judge today's politicians by their acts and words.

It just so happens that the leftists are easier to attack because they lie more, distort more, and have less credibility.

Other than the term "leftists" that's my goal here too -- honest argument. Always has been.


* actually the "Klan endorsed Clinton" play is a double Composition Fallacy as it wants a single ad hoc Klanner playing dress-up to represent a collective called "the Klan" (which does not exist), plus it wants "Clinton" to represent the quality of "Democrat".

**postscript -- the umlaut over O'bama's name was a typo but it's funny so I'm leaving it.

We are on the same page 98%. It is fact that Obama (O'Bama) invited BLM to the whitehouse and treated them like a legitimate organization. It is also fact that BLM is highly racist, has called for the murder of cops, and has called for the murder of all white people. So, lets be truthful about everything, shall we?

Once again -- we weren't talking about BLM and as far as that goes I have no evidence that it is an actual organization, nor that what somebody somewhere said automatically represents that organization's collective view, nor that whoever O'bama had in the WH represented any formal organization anyway.

Just as the Klan Klown in Kalifornia represents himself playing dress-up, and not a collective organization. I could call myself a Zoroastrian and then call for a ban on raisins --- that wouldn't mean Zorastrians are anti-raisin.

The post (again) was about the Klan and its historic involvement with Republicans. That has nothing to do with anything O'bama.

 

[Redfish]

Nope, that's between you and another poster. I acknowledge that members of both parties were members of the KKK and were racists. That is merely history.

The problem is when we try to judge people of the past by today's standards of right and wrong.

Agree fully. Everything must be judged in its own context.

The second problem is when one side or the other creates lies about the past in order to try to denigrate the opposition.

Again agreed. That's why I blew up the poster's mythology about "no prominent Republican". He was engaging in Composition Fallacy, the same fallacy that brings us "Democrats founded the KKK" and the photoshopped pics of Robert Byrd and "Hitler was a leftist" and myriad others including another one mentioned here that some KKKlown in Kalifornia endorsed Clinton "therefore Hillary is associated with Klan" or some shit*.

So when the poster tried to have it both ways I put up the stop sign, with irrefutable examples. SEEING these examples, the poster is then forced to abandon said Composition Fallacy and revert to either honest argument or, more likely, some other fallacy.

Presumably that's also where you were going with the "BLM/Ö'bama"** jazz -- another Composition Fallacy. BLM is neither my area of expertise, nor the topic, so we demurred.

My goal here is always to find the truth, post it, expose the partisan liars (mostly leftists, but some conservatives), and judge today's politicians by their acts and words.

It just so happens that the leftists are easier to attack because they lie more, distort more, and have less credibility.

Other than the term "leftists" that's my goal here too -- honest argument. Always has been.


* actually the "Klan endorsed Clinton" play is a double Composition Fallacy as it wants a single ad hoc Klanner playing dress-up to represent a collective called "the Klan" (which does not exist), plus it wants "Clinton" to represent the quality of "Democrat".

**postscript -- the umlaut over O'bama's name was a typo but it's funny so I'm leaving it.

We are on the same page 98%. It is fact that Obama (O'Bama) invited BLM to the whitehouse and treated them like a legitimate organization. It is also fact that BLM is highly racist, has called for the murder of cops, and has called for the murder of all white people. So, lets be truthful about everything, shall we?

Once again -- we weren't talking about BLM and as far as that goes I have no evidence that it is an actual organization, nor that what somebody somewhere said automatically represents that organization's collective view, nor that whoever O'bama had in the WH represented an organization.

The post (again) was about the Klan and its historic involvement with Republicans. That has nothing to do with anything O'bama.

the KKK has a historical involvement with both parties. mostly democrats in the early days. In more recent times with republican idiots like David Duke (who happens to live about a mile from me).