"Why Do You Rightwingers Keep Mentioning Obama?"

[alang1216]

b.Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on election day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.”
The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy

Are you ignorant of history or just wish to rewrite it? Neither Nixon nor Humphrey were overtly racist so the 'segregationist vote' either stayed home or decided on other issues. Since Wallace's support was generally Blue Collar they didn't turn to the party of the rich.

I just rammed your lies down your throat.

You can shovel as much manure at me as you want, doesn't mean I swallowed any of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

b.Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on electio

n day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.”
The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy

Are you ignorant of history or just wish to rewrite it? Neither Nixon nor Humphrey were overtly racist so the 'segregationist vote' either stayed home or decided on other issues. Since Wallace's support was generally Blue Collar they didn't turn to the party of the rich.

I just rammed your lies down your throat.

You can shovel as much manure at me as you want, doesn't mean I swallowed any of it.

It's hard to understand what passes for thinking it lying low-lives who refer to truth as 'manure.'

 

[alang1216]

" I know the Dixiecrats were NOT progressives and the Democratic Party was really two parties, Southern and Northern/Western."

Another lie proving your new appellation....."lying low-life."

Language is important, so in any discussion of who the segregationists were, liberals switch the word “Democrats” to “southerners.” Remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was supported by all the Republicans in the Senate, but only 29 of 47 Democrats…and a number of the ‘segregationist’ Democrats were northern Dems (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming). Not southerners: Democrats.

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

• There were plenty of southern integrationists in 1957. They were Republicans.
• There are plenty of southern integrationists in 2021. They are Democrats.

See how times have changed. You should add newspapers to your reading list.

 

[alang1216]

b.Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on electio

n day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.”
The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy

Are you ignorant of history or just wish to rewrite it? Neither Nixon nor Humphrey were overtly racist so the 'segregationist vote' either stayed home or decided on other issues. Since Wallace's support was generally Blue Collar they didn't turn to the party of the rich.

I just rammed your lies down your throat.

You can shovel as much manure at me as you want, doesn't mean I swallowed any of it.

It's hard to understand what passes for thinking it lying low-lives who refer to truth as 'manure.'

Your numbers may be correct but your interpretation was manure. You should be more careful where you tread.

 

[Rigby5]

1. The dull-witted pretend that the damage done by the most destructive of Presidents, Hussein Obama, should no longer be brought up.


Here's why he should:

Iran's Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated ...​

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East
Jun 4, 2021 — Iran-backed militias in Iraq are suspected of carrying out recent drone ... Iran-backed militia groups in Iraq used armed drones to attack the base ...

Face facts.
US troops should not be in Iraq, it was criminal for the US to invade Iraq, and any US military presence there is illegal.
It was also illegal for the US to kill Soleimani and incredibly stupid to use a drone to do it, as now it is open season with drones on anyone.

While it was disappointing for Obama to not get out of Iraq as he promised, that is not as bad as going in originally like Bush did.

And blaming Obama for the Iranians capturing a US drone is silly.
All they had to do was to aim a high enough frequency electro magnetic pulse at the drone and it would destroy any on board electronics, making it impossible for it to receive a self destruct signal, or carry it out if received.

Murdering Soleiman with a drone was incredibly stupid. Now it is a matter of time before we start losing presidents, or even whole capital buildings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The dull-witted pretend that the damage done by the most destructive of Presidents, Hussein Obama, should no longer be brought up.


Here's why he should:

Iran's Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated ...​

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East
Jun 4, 2021 — Iran-backed militias in Iraq are suspected of carrying out recent drone ... Iran-backed militia groups in Iraq used armed drones to attack the base ...

Face facts.
US troops should not be in Iraq, it was criminal for the US to invade Iraq, and any US military presence there is illegal.
It was also illegal for the US to kill Soleimani and incredibly stupid to use a drone to do it, as now it is open season with drones on anyone.

While it was disappointing for Obama to not get out of Iraq as he promised, that is not as bad as going in originally like Bush did.

And blaming Obama for the Iranians capturing a US drone is silly.
All they had to do was to aim a high enough frequency electro magnetic pulse at the drone and it would destroy any on board electronics, making it impossible for it to receive a self destruct signal, or carry it out if received.

Murdering Soleiman with a drone was incredibly stupid. Now it is a matter of time before we start losing presidents, or even whole capital buildings.

Unrelated and ignorant of the facts in the post to which you linked.

Representative of all of your attempted posts.

Please get lost.

 

[Rigby5]

1. The dull-witted pretend that the damage done by the most destructive of Presidents, Hussein Obama, should no longer be brought up.


Here's why he should:

Iran's Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated ...​

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East
Jun 4, 2021 — Iran-backed militias in Iraq are suspected of carrying out recent drone ... Iran-backed militia groups in Iraq used armed drones to attack the base ...

Face facts.
US troops should not be in Iraq, it was criminal for the US to invade Iraq, and any US military presence there is illegal.
It was also illegal for the US to kill Soleimani and incredibly stupid to use a drone to do it, as now it is open season with drones on anyone.

While it was disappointing for Obama to not get out of Iraq as he promised, that is not as bad as going in originally like Bush did.

And blaming Obama for the Iranians capturing a US drone is silly.
All they had to do was to aim a high enough frequency electro magnetic pulse at the drone and it would destroy any on board electronics, making it impossible for it to receive a self destruct signal, or carry it out if received.

Murdering Soleiman with a drone was incredibly stupid. Now it is a matter of time before we start losing presidents, or even whole capital buildings.

Unrelated and ignorant of the facts in the post to which you linked.

Representative of all of your attempted posts.

Please get lost.

No, you are trying to imply Iran is some sort of threat, when that is not true.
Iran has never been any sort of threat to the US or US interests, and it is we who keep attacking them instead.
We should just stop attacking them.
We should have no bases in Iraq.

 

[badger2]

The virus, however, traveled the entire planet. Why does the Obama-Biden administration, the past one, keep coming up? Because they are the ones who funded Duke-NUS in Singapore, which funding links to precisely the adenoviruses that the Russian military is vaccinated with, Sputnik V.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The dull-witted pretend that the damage done by the most destructive of Presidents, Hussein Obama, should no longer be brought up.


Here's why he should:

Iran's Proxies in Iraq Threaten U.S. With More Sophisticated ...​

https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East
Jun 4, 2021 — Iran-backed militias in Iraq are suspected of carrying out recent drone ... Iran-backed militia groups in Iraq used armed drones to attack the base ...

Face facts.
US troops should not be in Iraq, it was criminal for the US to invade Iraq, and any US military presence there is illegal.
It was also illegal for the US to kill Soleimani and incredibly stupid to use a drone to do it, as now it is open season with drones on anyone.

While it was disappointing for Obama to not get out of Iraq as he promised, that is not as bad as going in originally like Bush did.

And blaming Obama for the Iranians capturing a US drone is silly.
All they had to do was to aim a high enough frequency electro magnetic pulse at the drone and it would destroy any on board electronics, making it impossible for it to receive a self destruct signal, or carry it out if received.

Murdering Soleiman with a drone was incredibly stupid. Now it is a matter of time before we start losing presidents, or even whole capital buildings.

Unrelated and ignorant of the facts in the post to which you linked.

Representative of all of your attempted posts.

Please get lost.

No, you are trying to imply Iran is some sort of threat, when that is not true.
Iran has never been any sort of threat to the US or US interests, and it is we who keep attacking them instead.
We should just stop attacking them.
We should have no bases in Iraq.

It's so sad......any attempt to educate you is like dropping a rose petal down the Grand Canyon and waiting for the echo.