quote:

And LBJ said that if we can pass the various civil rights acts, “We’ll have those n——— voting for us for a hundred years.”

I haven't been able to verify that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...j-voting-democratic/

But is likely or at least possible. LBJ was vulgar and a racist.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

As for our federal leadership and JFK, I see a different and new hurdle for today's day and age, our diversity. JFK had it easy, we were a United States. Soviets Bad! Democracy Good! Pretty simple. Not a question of bombs to build but rather how many. The Civil Rights movement was going to succeed, it was just a matter of how much in which avenue. America was united in its opposition to the East and its progress as a society.

Not true. You say JFK had it easy...I disagree. The Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis were easy? A miscall there would have ended our world. Yet, JFK had it easy?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, over near unified southern democrat opossition, because of Kennedy's assassination. The southern democrat states wanted to continue lynching blacks--with the blessings of their representatives in Congress.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act was not inevitable. If JFK hadn't been murdered, it would have taken at least another twenty years, maybe, for federal protection for civil rights violations.

I corrected your post for historical political accuracy -- as the saying goes "cows and grass don't vote" inferring geography has little to do with outcomes --

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the point of this thread. Liars will lie and those who want to will believe them. Is that about it? Lefties will lie about some things and righties will lie about others. Both sides will often lie when the truth would have suited better. I don't think this is a revelation. Regards, Bill.

I think that's just another version of "both sides do it". It's a dismissal and a false equivalence.

First, it's ridiculous to deny that lies come from all directions. So, that almost shuts down argument about it, which is the intent of the "both sides" narrative.

Here's an explanation of why Trump's lies are different, thus not equivalent to the "other" side. Lies are not generic.

To put it simply, Trump got elected BECAUSE of lies, his and other GOPers. The "Other Side" politicians get elected or forgiven DESPITE their occasional lie, but their lies are not said, accepted or believed on a mass scale.

Trump's whole political foundation is a bed of lies, which ties into the OP premise, Belief in Fiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the point of this thread. Liars will lie and those who want to will believe them. Is that about it? Lefties will lie about some things and righties will lie about others. Both sides will often lie when the truth would have suited better. I don't think this is a revelation. Regards, Bill.

I think that's just another version of "both sides do it". It's a dismissal and a false equivalence.

First, it's ridiculous to deny that lies come from all directions.

Oh, Maggie -- you get a 9.75 on you world class mental gymnastics -

in the words of andre the giant " you keep saying 'false equivalence", i don't think you know what those words mean" ... after all, at your advanced age, you didn't know what "Acting' in rank/position meant, and have finally gotten something a grip on satire --

your OWN STATEMENT says both sides do this - its literally pretty hard to get to MORE of an equivalence. I realize that your world view is pretty fragile, and facile, depending on the talking points issued from the DNC on a daily basis .. but, honey, PLEASE, open your eyes and see the world as it is, rather than how you fear it is

this is a typical interaction with an indoctrinated liberal
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DESjf4hBm60

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

As for our federal leadership and JFK, I see a different and new hurdle for today's day and age, our diversity. JFK had it easy, we were a United States. Soviets Bad! Democracy Good! Pretty simple. Not a question of bombs to build but rather how many. The Civil Rights movement was going to succeed, it was just a matter of how much in which avenue. America was united in its opposition to the East and its progress as a society.

Not true. You say JFK had it easy...I disagree. The Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis were easy? A miscall there would have ended our world. Yet, JFK had it easy?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, over near unified southern democrat opossition, because of Kennedy's assassination. The southern democrat states wanted to continue lynching blacks--with the blessings of their representatives in Congress.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act was not inevitable. If JFK hadn't been murdered, it would have taken at least another twenty years, maybe, for federal protection for civil rights violations.

I corrected your post for historical political accuracy -- as the saying goes "cows and grass don't vote" inferring geography has little to do with outcomes --

That is a reasonable inference of that saying. However, a better reading is the sea of red countries one sees after an election does not equate to a majority of gop party alignment by a majority of citizens. This is because those low density areas do not have the population of citizens to be representative. If cows and trees (how I heard the phrase) vored, then that big red, low density map would be representative of an overwhelming gop aligned citizenry. Since, cows and grass do not vote that big red map folks like to show is not representative of an overwhelmingly party affliction of voting citizens.

As the discussion relates to post-reconstruction ethnic political restrictions, one of the worse states was Indiana. Edward Jackson and DC Stephenson controlling the state machine peaking in the early 20s.

In Northern States we had economic isolation of ethnic minorities. Equitable Servitudes wrote into deeds to keep ethnic minorities out of communities. Thus, limiting their ability to obtain wealth and good schooling.

I have read a lot of the blue collar trades structure was geared to prevent ethnic minorities from obtaining employment. Again, limiting job competition and restricting wealth of minorities.

All of that cannot replace the Black Codes, Jim Crow, and systematic use of violence against African American citizens following the end of Reconstruction.

It is not in the North the Supreme Court in 2012 details a pattern of racism by the state legislature to prevent an African American bring elected to Xongrss. That is Alabama in 2022.

It was not in the North Fed troops had to escort African Americans into schools and remove the state’s governor. That was the South.

No, it would not have taken another 20 years. It was going to happen either through JFK or Johnson as it did following.

Might i point out that the "Black Codes" originated in what would become Union states? Not joking, here, read for yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...0everyday%20practice.


but you do raise a critical point - "violence against blacks" was, in fact, nearly a unique thing that the dems also started, under the guise of the KKK - as there is little use in denying that DEMS formed the confederacy and then founded the KKK

quote:

The Klan was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865,[29] by six former officers of the Confederate army:[30] Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones, and James Crowe

Though "James Crowe" could easily be read "Jim Crow(e), there is no direct connection

This is the "mirror image" of the idiotic "Lost Cause" concepts-

ALL such Southern "jim Crow" laws came after the end of reconstruction, with DEMS surging back to power

Don't believe me? Go watch Mississippi Burning, and watch Republicans being killed, by dems, in the Deep south -- literally in my living memory

The first "real" Civil rights acts in the US was passed by .. tada... Republicans - CRA of 1875

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...l_Rights_Act_of_1875

The long and short of it is that as the GOP penetrated and governed the south, and the dems lost power, Racial relations improved

I haven't heard of a time, well, since reconstruction, that federal troops "removed" a state governor - please provide facts where a State Governor was removed from office by federal troops, as Ike did no such thing during the "Little Rock Crisis" also called the Little Rock Nine -

I have voted for ONE dem, several times, due to a personal connection with the candidate - While the Chief LEO of my hometown, he was, in his way, as good of a man as I have known -- oh, and he changed his party to GOP, eventually, when the party left him and his morals behind

Brown v. Board of Education was composed of 4 states segregation policies, only two in the traditional South.

Judge,
Brown vs TOPEKA KANSAS School board -- Kansas isn't generally even remotely considered "Southern"

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Judge,
Brown vs TOPEKA KANSAS School board -- Kansas isn't generally even remotely considered "Southern"

The four states combined were Kansas, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. According to the book, THE BRETHERN, the SCOTUS put Kansas first so the order wouldn’t be construed as anti-Southern.

Thank you for broadening my knowledge, sir

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the point of this thread. Liars will lie and those who want to will believe them. Is that about it? Lefties will lie about some things and righties will lie about others. Both sides will often lie when the truth would have suited better. I don't think this is a revelation. Regards, Bill.

I think that's just another version of "both sides do it". It's a dismissal and a false equivalence.

First, it's ridiculous to deny that lies come from all directions.

Oh, Maggie -- you get a 9.75 on you world class mental gymnastics -

in the words of andre the giant " you keep saying 'false equivalence", i don't think you know what those words mean" ... after all, at your advanced age, you didn't know what "Acting' in rank/position meant, and have finally gotten something a grip on satire --

your OWN STATEMENT says both sides do this - its literally pretty hard to get to MORE of an equivalence. I realize that your world view is pretty fragile, and facile, depending on the talking points issued from the DNC on a daily basis .. but, honey, PLEASE, open your eyes and see the world as it is, rather than how you fear it is

this is a typical interaction with an indoctrinated liberal
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DESjf4hBm60

Here's the whole post quoted:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the point of this thread. Liars will lie and those who want to will believe them. Is that about it? Lefties will lie about some things and righties will lie about others. Both sides will often lie when the truth would have suited better. I don't think this is a revelation. Regards, Bill.

I think that's just another version of "both sides do it". It's a dismissal and a false equivalence.

First, it's ridiculous to deny that lies come from all directions. So, that almost shuts down argument about it, which is the intent of the "both sides" narrative.

Here's an explanation of why Trump's lies are different, thus not equivalent to the "other" side. Lies are not generic.

To put it simply, Trump got elected BECAUSE of lies, his and other GOPers. The "Other Side" politicians get elected or forgiven DESPITE their occasional lie, but their lies are not said, accepted or believed on a mass scale.

Trump's whole political foundation is a bed of lies, which ties into the OP premise, Belief in Fiction.

So, what you did was a partial quote, then spouted a bunch of gibberish nonsense - all too often typical with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So, what you did was a partial quote ... all too often typical with you.

"all too often" and "typical" are redundant

and that was a partial quote

How about, all typically too often with you?

So, we were discussing lies and the belief thereof in politics, before you distracted.

I said:

quote:

To put it simply, Trump got elected BECAUSE of lies, his and other GOPers. The "Other Side" politicians get elected or forgiven DESPITE their occasional lie, but their lies are not said, accepted or believed on a mass scale.

What part of that do you disagree with? My point is that Trump's lies compared to all other are not "equivalent" (on the same plane or scale) for several reasons. First being intent and second the belief thereof.

================

Trump's lies were calculated and strategic for winning the election in 2024, including the spin and flipping the narrative about the attempted insurrection in January 2021.

Also, the lies were designed to create the so-called constitutional crisis back in January 2021. No other candidate for POTUS or sitting POTUS has ever done that.

Believing his lies by his base supporters was/is essential in his success.

The constitutional crisis would have happened if Pence had left the capitol on 1/6/21, or just refused to certify. It was part of the plan per some members of congress such as Gym Jordon and MAGA Mike, who wrote an amicus brief supposedly constitutionally supporting the plan for GOPers in congress to recognize the alternate (fake) electors and declare Trump the winner. John Eastman outlined the larger scope of the plan, supposedly through constitutional law. As I recall, Eastman lost his law license due to his involvement in the scheme.

John Eastman - Wikipedia:
Eastman is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public-interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. He is a former professor and former dean at Chapman University School of Law.

Trump tried to get Bill Barr to say in writing that there appeared to be "irregularities" regarding the vote count in the 2020 election. IOW, Trump asked Barr to lie for him. Barr refused. Trump told Barr that all he needed from him was for him to declare irregularities, thus uncertainty, and then he (Trump) could let his loyalist GOPers in congress take it from there.

So, my point is that Trump's lies are unparallel in the history of the nation, both in the telling and intent and also the Belief in the Fiction by his supporters. I'm saying that Trump won in 2024 BECAUSE of his lies and the Belief in Fiction, and his lies were integral to the plan to create a constitutional crisis in January 2021 specifically to culminate an insurrection to stay in power.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out the point of this thread. Liars will lie and those who want to will believe them. Is that about it? Lefties will lie about some things and righties will lie about others. Both sides will often lie when the truth would have suited better. I don't think this is a revelation. Regards, Bill.

I think that's just another version of "both sides do it". It's a dismissal and a false equivalence.

First, it's ridiculous to deny that lies come from all directions. So, that almost shuts down argument about it, which is the intent of the "both sides" narrative.

Here's an explanation of why Trump's lies are different, thus not equivalent to the "other" side. Lies are not generic.

To put it simply, Trump got elected BECAUSE of lies, his and other GOPers. The "Other Side" politicians get elected or forgiven DESPITE their occasional lie, but their lies are not said, accepted or believed on a mass scale.

Trump's whole political foundation is a bed of lies, which ties into the OP premise, Belief in Fiction.

Trump because you lot fielded Kamala!

A most stupid Bimbo has never lived before!

Trump was so easy to defeat.

But you lefties had nothing to put against him.

The people are fed up with your senseless politics!

Trump won.

And America lost!

America would have lost either way!

Now we look forward to 4 years of utterly crazy politics.

He has already started.

Look at his cabinet picks!

I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t pick Pelosi or Schumer if he think it will save him!

He might even ask AOC on a date!

You know “grab them by the pussy!”

quote:

Trump won because you lot fielded Kamala!

And America lost!

Now we look forward to 4 years of utterly crazy politics.

Maybe on the first claim.

Surly [sic] on the second and third claim.

===============================

I have to disagree with you Saeed on why Trump won. You are leaving out the power Trump demonstrated with lies. I think that is the factor that turned the Red Tide.

Can anyone support the claim that Trump didn't lie on a vast scale?

AND his lies were not believed as truth by the vast majority of his supporters?

AND, he would have won the election anyway, despite the lies and belief?

I'm claiming it tipped in his favor LARGELY due to the lies and the belief. And I've explained why and supported my claim.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I was born in South Georgia in 1946. I’ve never seen a pointy white hood or a burning cross. In 1964, without Federal pressure, the local school board voted to voluntarily integrate the segregated school system. I was the president of the student government, naive and dumber than a stump. There was no big newspaper announcement or a single protest. At my suggestion (because, I guess, I had seen images of Little Rock), the first 8 Black kids didn’t attend the first day and we (me speaking) had an assembly of white/brown and Asian kids to discuss the three year plan to total integration. I don’t remember a single student in the 1500 student high school giving a shit. Then, the next day the new students came. Other than the shortly experienced novelty which faded in a week, that was it but for one confrontation that school year (two students in a stairwell, no injuries). The irony was that the “white” student was Romani and later married a cousin of the Black student.
I joined the Marine Corps in 1966 and was commissioned in 1968. We all bled red. Even liberals from Idaho.
I don’t know what part of the United States you’re talking about where folks wanted to Lynch Black people but it sure as hell wasn’t a part that I spent any time in. In 1969 I had a Black roommate (a fellow fledgling Naval aviator, too) in Meridian, Mississippi. After a couple of fools confronted us at a theater, the Chamber of Commerce invited us to their Friday “after hours” cocktail gathering to, I guess, show the Navy that Meridian wasn’t “burning”. The Nay’s money was more important than skin color. Was then and always be.

You might be interested in studying a bit more about the voluntary transformations that killed Jim Crow. BTW, what state had the largest membership in the KKK? Indiana. Hardly Southern.

quote:

Now we look forward to 4 years of utterly crazy politics.

Crazy and corrupt.

There's some perverted dystopian irony in Trumpism besides the Belief in Fiction.

For example, as posted above:

quote:

The constitutional crisis would have happened if Pence had left the capitol on 1/6/21, or just refused to certify. It was part of the plan per some members of congress such as Gym Jordon and MAGA Mike, who wrote an amicus brief supposedly constitutionally supporting the plan for GOPers in congress to recognize the alternate (fake) electors and declare Trump the winner. John Eastman outlined the larger scope of the plan, supposedly through constitutional law. As I recall, Eastman lost his law license due to his involvement in the scheme.

John Eastman - Wikipedia:
Eastman is the founding director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public-interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. He is a former professor and former dean at Chapman University School of Law.

Trump tried to get Bill Barr to say in writing that there appeared to be "irregularities" regarding the vote count in the 2020 election. IOW, Trump asked Barr to lie for him. Barr refused. Trump told Barr that all he needed from him was for him to declare irregularities, thus uncertainty, and then he (Trump) could let his loyalist GOPers in congress take it from there.

Eastman and MAGA Mike and practically all Trump supporters, the whole bunch, claim to be constitutionalists of some sort. Yet they created or condoned a scheme to achieve something utterly dystopian by twisting the constitution, all on behalf of Dear Leader and the power to control the country and win the culture war.

Then when the scheme failed to produce the results intended, and instead also gave rise to the reality narratives, they have steadily worked to flip the reality narrative script since - with more lies in support of prior lies.

That's the way it's done. Orwell couldn't have written better fiction, which proves that reality is stranger than fiction.

It's only the beginning.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...0c22b0934f909a&ei=32

'Sounds like treason': MAGA attorney tells ex-Trump General Mark Milley to 'lawyer up'

The truth is that nothing that Trump or his Team says can be trusted and taken as Truth. It's ALL spin is the starting assumption.

For Example:

https://wapo.st/40cuWm6

Trump team says Canada, Greenland, Panama comments are part of a broader plan
Not everyone is convinced.

December 28, 2024

https://www.the-independent.co...enland-b2671828.html

Former Trump adviser finally admits climate change exists to justify threatened Greenland takeover
Robert O’Brien eyes opening Arctic waterways as way to ‘cut down’ on use of Panama Canal

It is not about membership. It is about party control.

You should go read about the KKK control of Indiana. I did not say Indiana was southern. What it was, was a conservative, white majority state that went deep for KKK political designs.

Wo the Federal government and the Civil Rights movement Jim Crow was not going away. Your attempts to make it otherwise are dishonest.

Likewise, it was Southern governors that had to be physically removed from college la. It was not old pro union states governors.

There is nothing that can trump the matter.

As you identified the other states part of the Brown case were all southern slave states. That included Delaware.

You go read.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I was born in South Georgia in 1946. I’ve never seen a pointy white hood or a burning cross. In 1964, without Federal pressure, the local school board voted to voluntarily integrate the segregated school system...

Blah, Blah,

You might be interested in studying a bit more about the voluntary transformations that killed Jim Crow. BTW, what state had the largest membership in the KKK? Indiana. Hardly Southern.

Jim Crow and segregation are still active ideas, still living in the hearts and minds of GOPers.

It's the same principle as calling themselves patriots when they support an insurrectionist or calling themselves supporters of the constitution and at the same time support someone who fomented a well-developed plan to subvert the constitution.

The real and perhaps the only reason GOPers want to abolish the Dept. of Education is to make it easier to subvert taxpayer money to private segregated schools and to starve public schools.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno


========================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a58346f903c731&ei=20

Expert on conservatism explains why he refused to appear on 'propagandist' Steve Bannon’s podcast
Story by Alex Henderson • 2h • 2 min read

But the historian/author recently turned down an invitation to appear on far-right MAGA Republican Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast, and he explained why during a late December appearance on the Daily Beast's "New Abnormal" podcast.

The historian/author stressed that he has no desire to engage with someone who "brags about lying as a political strategy." "I'm perfectly happy to engage with people who disagree with me in a public forum, but not when the guy who controls the microphone admits to being a propagandist."

"I was referring to (Bannon's) famous quote that the way to win is to flood the zone with s----," Perlstein expanded.

Perlstein recalled his conservation with one of Bannon's colleagues, noting, "I said, 'I'm not going to go on the show…. She said something like, 'Oh, we play it totally straight. No games'."

Perlstein added, "It'd be like playing a basketball game where the other team gets the hoop to be at five feet and yours has to be ten."

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


Likewise, it was Southern governors that had to be physically removed from college la. It was not old pro union states governors.

...
As you identified the other states part of the Brown case were all southern slave states. That included Delaware.

You go read.

Happy to go read
1: please provide a linked to where a ANY governor was physically removed by federales
2: Delaware? SOUTHERN? It's specifically ABOVE the "mason dixon line" and was a union state -- here's a link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...n%E2%80%93Dixon_line

note that the MD line is specifically drawn to include delaware in the north

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Two days ago I got into a political discussion with a far-right friend who I hadn't seen for a while. I was familiar with almost all his BS because of this forum. The "discussion" reminded me of how useless it is to try sorting facts from fiction in person.

He said several times that he was keen about facts. I knew that was BS, but difficult to pin down. He also "knew" so much about leftist beliefs, especially about men using women's restrooms with leftist approval. What finally ended the conversation was when I told him a fact - That Trump offered quid-pro-quo to some oil executives - for a $$ billion to his campaign he would promise "drill baby drill". He didn't believe me and said prove it. So, I showed him an article on my smart phone published by NYT. He said something like NYT is fake news, they lie. Then he said show me ten news sources. So, I did. Then he called them all liars.

He was so nice and concerned about me believing in lies/fiction that he kindly offered to pay for a subscription to Bill O'Reilly's podcast, so I could hear the truth and facts. I kindly declined. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=[/QUOTE

This is the root of the problem. Total unshakeable believe in your leader/cause that all logic and reasoning is gone. The base symptom of a cult. The thought process of stepping back and looking at an issue, evaluating the facts, researching it and finally making an informed option is very rare today. Even if you do all your homework and do make an informed decision you are not always correct. Part of being an intelligent informed adult is to be willing to listen to other options and reevaluate and modify your option if (Big IF) the facts support it. Too many people today spout social media post as facts when they are out and out lies and do not think for themselves. People need to step back and start stepping back and evaluating stuff they see with jaded glasses. ME is one of the few who does appear to think for himself and form his own opinion and IMHO has some credibility here.

I trust ME’s credibility to catch a yellow cat.

But back to your point. You and your articles allege that the only reason Trump is pro oil exploration is due to donations to his campaign and had they not contributed he would be tough on exploration???

Wondering if I will ever get a response.

Speaking of untruths…

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


Likewise, it was Southern governors that had to be physically removed from college la. It was not old pro union states governors.

...
As you identified the other states part of the Brown case were all southern slave states. That included Delaware.

You go read.

Happy to go read
1: please provide a linked to where a ANY governor was physically removed by federales
2: Delaware? SOUTHERN? It's specifically ABOVE the "mason dixon line" and was a union state -- here's a link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...n%E2%80%93Dixon_line

note that the MD line is specifically drawn to include delaware in the north

I do mkt have to provide a like. I hat tried of doing everyone’s reading, but here you go

Mississippi Governor had to be physically removed by the Feds.

https://thehobbservationpoint....top-integration/amp/

He should have been arrested.

Yes, Delaware was below the Masson Dixion line and a slave state. Call it a border state if you will, but it was not northern.

Anyone ever hear of George Wallace?

You know, governor of Indiana?

Wallace was governor of Alabama.

The KKK backed Gov of Indiana was Edward Jackson.

I suggest you guys read the books:

Grand Dragon
D.C. Stephenson and the Ku Klux Klan
by M. William Lutholtz

And
Citizen Klansman; The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana 1921-1928
Linked Moore

From JStor
By some accounts, Indiana had the most Klan members of any state. One third of its white American-born men joined. The group grew so fast it ran out of white robes three times. Indiana Klansmen swayed both political parties and got members elected to many positions. Its governor, Edward Jackson, was a close friend of the the Indiana Klan leader, D. C. Stephenson, a pudgy man with a reputation for high living, carousing, and trouble with the law.

Of course, Gov. Bibb Graves of Alabama was was Grand Cyclops of the Montgomery chapter of the KKK. Gov. Clifford Walker was a KKK governor in GA.

In 1920s Colorado, the Klan “could well believe they owned the state,” wrote the hisorian Carl Abbott in Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. In Denver, Klansmen held the offices of head of public safety, city attorney, chief of police, and several judgeships, and they were behind the election of its mayor. At higher levels, the Klan helped elect the state’s U.S. senators and governor, while Ku Kluxers themselves held four of the state’s top offices and one seat on its Supreme Court. “The Republican Party, heavily influenced by the Klan, controlled both houses of the legislature,” according to Abbott.

The political influence of the KKK leaking in the 20s as an American first political organization cannot be understated. America being white and protestant.

I was being sarcastic for the benefit of those who claim racism wasn't a southern problem.

Of course it wasn't solely a southern problem. Ohio had its KKK too. They once burned a cross in my mother's family's yard in North Industry because they were Catholic and owened a prominant business.

I apologize for not picking up on the sarcasm.

The KKK message of the 20s sounded a lot like the political messaging of Trump, Christian Nationalism.

That will make people mad, but it is true. It is the same game. There is nothing new.

The KKK in Indiana began to lose power when D. C. Stephenson, raped and literally chewed up a young woman. She testified and the candle took down his KKK machine. Who now leads a political movement that is an adjudicated sexual assaulter of women?

I can email anyone who wants to see and have done so to a few here local KKK flyers that was nailed to my door. These semi-local cooks are pathetic.

Trick question: Which northern politician said this in a speech?

"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:


Likewise, it was Southern governors that had to be physically removed from college la. It was not old pro union states governors.

...
As you identified the other states part of the Brown case were all southern slave states. That included Delaware.

You go read.

Happy to go read
1: please provide a linked to where a ANY governor was physically removed by federales
2: Delaware? SOUTHERN? It's specifically ABOVE the "mason dixon line" and was a union state -- here's a link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...n%E2%80%93Dixon_line

note that the MD line is specifically drawn to include delaware in the north

I do mkt have to provide a like. I hat tried of doing everyone’s reading, but here you go

Mississippi Governor had to be physically removed by the Feds.

https://thehobbservationpoint....top-integration/amp/

He should have been arrested.

Yes, Delaware was below the Masson Dixion line and a slave state. Call it a border state if you will, but it was not northern.

Thank you, sir, i was unaware of this.

quote:

segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...63_Inaugural_Address

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address

==============================================

Alabama is still a very racist state, with racist politicians.

==============================================
Some little known stiff about Alabama:

When driving west from Georgia, when you cross the state line into Alabama, set your clock back one hour and 20 years.

Did you know that Alabama is divided in two sections? There's LA (lower Alabama) and NA (northern Alabama). So Wallace must have been from NA.

Regarding political corruption, dishonesty, lawfare, hypocrisy, lies and belief thereof, it's becoming more difficult to keep up:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...5202db4e8ef612&ei=48

Congress just committed a 'New Years Eve ethics massacre': watchdog

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...5202db4e8ef612&ei=83

'Take this as a warning': Texas attorney general issues ominous threat to GOP lawmakers

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...703cfb418400da&ei=10

'Ignore this amicus sophistry': WSJ editorial board in disbelief at Trump's latest antic

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...703cfb418400da&ei=73

Chief Justice John Roberts sounds alarm over potential defiance of court rulings

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...03cfb418400da&ei=123

Chief Justice Says Intimidation and Violence Threaten Judicial Independence

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news...y=1&ocid=socialshare

Alarm raised over Ginni Thomas given access to Trump Oval Office after he's sworn in

Racism will always be around and I think nowadays it is racism against white majority and it is sanctioned legally and in vogue as well and it is different form as we see it because it is accepted for all sides…crazy

So I see that you are a Believer in the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nt_conspiracy_theory

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...fuel-racist-violence

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
Two days ago I got into a political discussion with a far-right friend who I hadn't seen for a while. I was familiar with almost all his BS because of this forum. The "discussion" reminded me of how useless it is to try sorting facts from fiction in person.

He said several times that he was keen about facts. I knew that was BS, but difficult to pin down. He also "knew" so much about leftist beliefs, especially about men using women's restrooms with leftist approval. What finally ended the conversation was when I told him a fact - That Trump offered quid-pro-quo to some oil executives - for a $$ billion to his campaign he would promise "drill baby drill". He didn't believe me and said prove it. So, I showed him an article on my smart phone published by NYT. He said something like NYT is fake news, they lie. Then he said show me ten news sources. So, I did. Then he called them all liars.

He was so nice and concerned about me believing in lies/fiction that he kindly offered to pay for a subscription to Bill O'Reilly's podcast, so I could hear the truth and facts. I kindly declined. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=[/QUOTE

This is the root of the problem. Total unshakeable believe in your leader/cause that all logic and reasoning is gone. The base symptom of a cult. The thought process of stepping back and looking at an issue, evaluating the facts, researching it and finally making an informed option is very rare today. Even if you do all your homework and do make an informed decision you are not always correct. Part of being an intelligent informed adult is to be willing to listen to other options and reevaluate and modify your option if (Big IF) the facts support it. Too many people today spout social media post as facts when they are out and out lies and do not think for themselves. People need to step back and start stepping back and evaluating stuff they see with jaded glasses. ME is one of the few who does appear to think for himself and form his own opinion and IMHO has some credibility here.

I trust ME’s credibility to catch a yellow cat.

But back to your point. You and your articles allege that the only reason Trump is pro oil exploration is due to donations to his campaign and had they not contributed he would be tough on exploration???

Wondering if I will ever get a response.

Speaking of untruths…

I took a while to think about your question. My first instinct was that it is a trap. The question is presumptive and the parameters of the premise kinda boxes it in. The article does not allege what you claim for starters. Plus, I can't infer that Trump's message to the oil execs was bully, like in pay up or else. I don't think Trump has the balls for that with those guys. The way you framed the question suggests the answer is found by getting into Trump's head. That's way too scary. Also, reasonable predictions or assumptions about what he was thinking is ridiculous. He's too squirely for a reasonable person to attempt that. It's best to take what he says at face value, which includes identifying the lies.

But what can be inferred from the fact that he said it is that he didn't know or care about the optics. He just said the quiet part out loud. Many other factors tie into it, such as climate science, Trump's desire to pacify the oligarchs, defeat environmental protections, open public lands to drilling. It shows attitude and a small window into worldview.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So I see that you are a Believer in the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nt_conspiracy_theory

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...fuel-racist-violence

said no one but you --

It's a reasonable inference, and an invite to deny it.

I worded it carefully, about halfway between an accusation and question.

If it's not true, then he should deny it, with further explanation.

Cyberspace is waiting.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


Cyberspace is waiting.

no one owes you a dang thing - you can wait, it's your strawman, make it march, maggie

do you still beat your dogs? "Cyberspace is waiting"

The inference remains, despite your deflection and farce indignations (strawman?).

Denial and explanation is the only remedy. Otherwise, I'll assume I pegged it.

IMO, the guy who spouted a version of the conspiracy theory owes it to himself to come to terms with it - own it - or reconsider.

oh boy, did "Farce" come up in your word of the day? oh, sweety, ... your words aren't doing what you think they are

quote:

oh, sweety, ... your words aren't doing what you think they are

With you - I'm not surprised or disappointed.

Do you know what is the root of all disappointment?

It's expectation.

You would surprise me by not doing what I expect. IOW, you are predictable.

OTOH, I would like to be predictable too, in a good way.

https://www.brookings.edu/arti...-election-narrative/

Brookings

How disinformation defined the 2024 election narrative

Darrell M. West
November 7, 2024