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).
Not really. Both those Klans have pointedly avoided political affiliations institutionally. Certainly individual members would have had political parties but in the 19th century version, the fact that a group is opposing an influx that happens to be Republicans, doesn't make that group by default "Democrats". (A), their opposition was not based on political ideologies and was certainly not limited to "Republicans", and (B), when the Klan was first formed in 1865 Tennessee, "Democrats" hadn't even existed there for four years. "Carpetbaggers", "scalawags" and ex-slaves were all targets while not being "Republicans" in any relevant way.
And in the 20th century version when it grew into a much more widespread and influential group, especially the 1920s, it was rousing support for, or opposing, both Democrats and Republicans simultaneously (and in at least one case an unaffiliated candidate with no party at all). Also simultaneously the Governors of Oklahoma and Kansas were trying to drive the Klan out of their respective states in the early '20s; one was a Democrat, the other a Republican. In heavily-Republican Maine, both the pro-and the anti-Klan elements were Republican (because everybody was) just as in, say, Georgia both the pro- and anti-Klan elements were Democrats for the same reason.
Posters keep trying to associate the Klan with a political party to no avail. It's not a political thing. It's a
social thing. It will appeal to the more conservative elements
socially, but it really doesn't care whether its aims are advanced by a Democrat, a Republican, or no political party at all, because its thrust is social, not political. Historically it spent more of its energy with social events like putting on festivals and picnics and car races and churches, than with politicians. The latter it used as just another tool.
Groups like the Klan bubble up because we had, and still have, social conflict undercurrents, including racism, xenophobia and general bigotries based on paranoias and irrational fears. Those are the Klan's fuels and always have been. If the KKK can be said to have a political party antecedent it would be the Know Nothings who overtly fueled on the same stuff.
