American Flag With Swastika Is Found in Republican Congressman's Office - The New York Times
By: Hannah Ziegler (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Republican congressman from Ohio said on Wednesday that his office and the U.S. Capitol Police were investigating after an American flag that had been altered to depict a swastika was found in his Capitol Hill office.
A photo of the flag, which was obtained and reported by Politico, shows that some of its red and white stripes had been arranged into the shape of a swastika. Politico reported that the image was taken during a virtual meeting that included one of Mr. Taylor's staff members.
"I am aware of an image that appears to depict a vile and deeply inappropriate symbol near an employee in my office," Mr. Taylor said in a statement. "The content of that image does not reflect the values or standards of this office, my staff or myself, and I condemn it in the strongest terms."
His office said the flag, which appeared to be pinned to a cubical wall, was "vandalism."
Mr. Taylor is a first-term congressman representing a district east of Cincinnati. Upon learning of the image, he said in the statement, he "immediately" opened an investigation alongside the U.S. Capitol Police. The investigation is continuing, and "no further comment will be provided until it has been completed," he said.
In response to an email seeking comment, the Capitol Police said its public information office was closed because of the government shutdown. The department did not immediately respond to a phone message.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Taylor did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Just like OJ Simpson is still looking for the real killer.
isn't he dead?
don't they have mirrors in hell?
I think some folks here have already downloaded this app.
but they forgot to vote up my comment ...
For some Republicans diversity means the Klan and Nazis.
no doubt. if they would've opened up the closet in his office, they'd find his sheets and hoods ...
Nah, he keeps his gay boyfriends in the closet.
that would explain some of the stains on his klan uniforms ...
Can't be true since the Dems founded the Klan - read your history.
Totally irrelevant and completely misleading. What happened 160 years ago has nothing to do with what's happening now.
Do you think these people are Democrats?
Scenes from the Unite The Right Rally, Charlottesville, 2017
Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol, January 6, 2021:
Trump supporters shouting "Hail Trump" and giving the Nazi salute at an "alt-right" conference on November 19, 2016, held to celebrate Trump's victory.
Nice [✘]
Only to the badly misinformed.
that sounds more tactful than willfully ignorant maga morons ...
Well, yeah...
It's like if some conservative was using "gay" as an insult and when asked why they're so homophobic they claim "No, I was just calling them happy because that's what the word gay really means". In our modern world the word 'gay' means homosexual and confederates and the KKK vote Republican regardless of their origins.
Do you honestly think they are Republicans? Do you think that simply because academia places these idiots on the right that this alone makes them Republicans? If so, why?
You're correct. They should not be referred to as Republicans when there is a more accurate term - Trump voters.
Yes.
Because the Republican party actively sought the bigots and white supremacists vote after Democrats authored, voted for and had a Democratic President sign into law both the voting rights act and civil rights act. The Republican party has become a giant shield for their white supremacist voters who could hide behind "conservative values" as a reason to hate Obama and work at dismantling the voting rights act and civil rights act as they have been doing in the courts for years now. Republican and Christian (which virtually all white supremacists in America consider themselves) white supremacist values align. Why would anyone in the photos above support the Democratic party that wants to tear down memorials and celebrations of the confederacy, supports affirmative action, supports lgtbq rights, nominated and then elected the first black President. These are not values that white conservative Christian racists or their confederate ancestors would ever support. No, they have found their place among the Republican party that welcomed them with open arms and continues to defend them by either claiming they don't exist, or downplaying their numbers. The fact is they do exist and in quite large numbers as gets proved every time we pull back the curtain. They're not just some crazy extreme right handful among Republicans, they're running their networks, running the groups like Young Republicans, working for Republican congressmen or for the President himself making US policy and sending a clearly racist Gestapo against the American people.
The Republican party is a safe haven for white supremacists so I don't know why anyone would find it strange to find all of them under their tent. Not all Republicans are white supremacists, but it's a safe bet to conclude that virtually all white supremacists in America support Trump and thus have been voting for Republicans.
[✘]
[✘]
Wildly incorrect.
Um, so after 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to only 61% of Democrats in the Senate, and 82% of Republicans as opposed to 69% of Democrats in the House, they shrewdly joined the southern Democrats? You're going to have to explain that one.
The rest of your comment seems even less accurate or defensible.
Well, you and I know what our discussion is of - thanks.
Yes, and I just believe you are wrong. History shows that to be the case.
The idiots placed themselves on the right.
Do we have to go through this again? This topic has been discussed on NT at least a dozen times. The voting on the CRA was based on geography, not party. In 1964 there both conservative and liberal Republicans and Democrats. Not a single southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act, but northern liberal or moderate Republicans did. There were more southern Democratic senators and congressmen, and that accounts for the discrepancy. They were conservatives from the south, not 21st century liberals.
[✘]
1964 Civil Rights Act votes by party and region:
House of Representatives:
Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote.
Senate:
Fact: 100% of Southern Republicans voted AGAINST the civil rights act.
Fact: MORE Democratic house members voted FOR the civil rights act than Republicans. 153 Democrat House members vs 136 Republicans.
Fact: MORE Democratic Senate members voted FOR the civil rights act than Republicans. 46 to 27.
Fact: A Democrat President signed it into law
Was that a slow enough explanation for you? The facts show that Democrats authored, voted for and signed into law the voting rights act and civil rights act which is why those Southern Democrats started to move towards the Southern Republicans who ALL voted against the civil rights act.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips
It took longer than the Republicans thought it would take, but the transition is now complete. It's obvious that the Republican party is chock full of "Negrophobe whites" as Mr. Phillips would call them.
That’s hilarious. Academia didn’t put those idiots on the Right. They did that all by themselves.
Explanation? More like gaslighting. Let's look at what the facts actually are. All stats I provide came from ChatGPT.
At the time the Civil Rights Act was passed, Republicans held 176 seats in the house, while Democrats held 258 seats. In the Senate, Republicans held 34 seats and Democrats 66. Almost twice as many seats.
With this in mind, I'll repost the total numbers concerning the vote by party.
This means that even though there were twice as many Democrats in Congress at the time, Republicans supported the CRA far more than Democrats did as a percentage of party.
Technically correct, depending on your definition of Southern. However, it's misleading as hell. There were practically no Southern Republicans at the time. 11 Republican votes compared to 103 Democrat. That is, Republicans were outnumbered nearly 10 to 1. Just posting numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
For instance, you point out in your table that 100% of Senate Republicans from Southern Republicans (1 person) voted nay but leave out the fact that 95% of Democrats (19 out of 20) did the same thing. Misleading as Hell.
Meaningless without context. For instance, there were 77 more Democrats in the house than Republicans. Your numbers only mean something if there were parity in seat distribution. You are just throwing out numbers like these to create the illusion that, as a party, Democrats were more for the CRA than the Republicans were when in reality, the question is who was more for the bill? Answer, Republicans.
The question can only be answered by percentages. If A has 50 members in it and B has 500, it would be ridiculous to state that, if all 50 in A voted for fish for dinner while only 100 of B voted for it that group B was more for fish as dinner than A.
Same thing again. There were more than twice the number of Democrats in the Senate than Republicans. These numbers, as you are attempting to present them, are meaningless. Only percentages paint the real picture.
And? How does this have any relevance to the fact that Republicans supported the CRA more than the Democrats? Further, while a Democratic president signed it into law, the bill had bipartisan support. It may even have been cosponsored, although that is not known, since cosponsoring didn't actually become a thing until 1967.
In the end, you're just trying to use raw numbers to make your point, which is obviously misleading. It doesn't change the fact that, as a party, Republicans favored the CRA far more than the Democrats.
I presented facts, you hide behind "percentages". Everything I stated was fact. All you have are partisan talking points trying to claim somehow, the Northern Democrats, the majority who voted FOR the civil rights act don't matter because of some dickwad conservative Democrats in the South who "percentagewise" taint the whole party. Well fuck that. You know as well as I do that those fuckers in the South started listening to the 100% of Southern Republicans who voted AGAINST the civil rights act, and they were pretty attractive to all those Southern Democrats angry with their own party for passing the civil rights and voting rights act. That's why their party is what it is today, rightwing confederate flag flying confederate monument defending white conservative Christian Republicans with the only thing having changed was the letter after their party affiliation from (D) to (R). It is absolutely moronic to believe that some "new" white conservative Christian moved into the South and took over after the stranglehold that white conservative Democrats had in the south. The ONLY explanation is that over the last forty years those confederate flag flying confederate monument defending white Christian conservative Democrats vote for Republicans these days because that's the party that supports tearing down the civil rights act and voting rights act and is against all the same liberal craziness like the lgtbq community that they were back then. To not see the reality of this should require a lobotomy because if someone is so fucking thick that they can't see it they need surgical remedies.
Let me say it a different way so that you can understand. Most Anarchists, historically and today, fall on the left of the political scale. Does this mean that an Anarchist working within the Democratic party make the Democratic party Anarchist or that individual a Democrat?
A higher percentage of northern Democrats than northern Republicans voted for the bill AND a higher percentage of southern Democrats than southern Republicans voted for the bill. End of story.
The Civil Rights Act was voted up and down on a geographical basis and a liberal-moderate/conservative basis, not a party line.
That's a silly question. A political party can move left or right; it's not the left or right that define them. Southern Democrats were once squarely rightwing conservatives, and they are still today; they just vote Republican now.
You presented raw numbers that tell us nothing in an attempt to gaslight us into the lie that Democrats were more for the CRA than Republicans were.
What hiding? Percentages are the only way for you to support your claim that I responded to...
The data says that what you say here is pure nonsense. Republicans wanted whatever you consider to be the bigot and white supremacist support so that's why they voted FOR the bill?
This statement suggests that the major hurdle for passing the RCA was Republicans, and if not for the Democrats, the bill would not have passed. The fact is, it's the other way around. You go back and forth between the parties as a whole and, when it suits your need, want only to talk about Southern Democrats and Republicans when it serves your needs. But, even if we do restrict it to just that, the bill would never have passed. It would have been defeated by something like 93%. So, what's your point?
No. It was just me pointing out that, since you were speaking of Southern Republicans compared to Southern Democrats, there really isn't much difference between 100% and 95%. Especially when one side is outnumbered 10 to 1.
This makes no sense. You're saying "those fuckers" would start listening to the party that showed more support for the bill out of anger towards their party, which showed less? And, why would they listen more to the Southern Republicans that voted nay, and not to Southern Democrats, who also voted nay? If so, I'd agree on the "stupid" part of your description.
The vote on the CRA was less Democrat vs Republican than it was liberal/moderate vs conservative. But even with that the percentages by region favor the Democrats. You are trying to make an argument you cant possibly win, other than it is true some Republican votes were needed because there were so many southern conservative Democrats.
That’s an unsupported opinion that is irrelevant regardless of its truth or falsity. What may or may not have been the case for a group historically doesn’t define what they are today.
Additionally, you have presented no evidence that the people pictured are even anarchists, anyway. In fact, the available evidence speaks to the contrary. I see the confederate stars and bars. I see the swastika. Those symbols are not anarchist symbols. So let’s dispense with that red herring.
Today - including the last several years - those people have repeatedly endorsed Republican candidates and policies. In turn, Republicans politicians have encouraged or apologized for them.
No longer flirting with them on the fringe, the current administration now openly advocates for the authoritarianism in government and dehumanization of minorities characteristic of both Nazi Germany and the old South.
[deleted][✘]
And what argument is that?
No, it wasn't. Who voted what was based on a geographical basis, but the bill itself did not.
Here's the thing, John. You and Dismayed Patriot are trying to portray this as Democrats struggling to pass the Civil Rights Act despite Republican efforts. That it was all due to Democrats. Nonsense. The fact is, the bill had largely bipartisan support and, likely, whatever passed for co-sponsorship in those days. It had no chance of passing without Republican support and they supported it more than the Democrats as a percentage of each party.
Did you know that the Democrats filibustered the bill for 60 working days straight? Probably with the support of Southern Republicans, I'm sure. That had to be overcome just to get it to where Congress could vote on the bill. According to ChatGPT...
To give that a bit more context...
That means nearly half of Democrats voted against Cloture, while less than a quarter of Republicans did so. And this just to get the bill out of a filibuster so it could be voted on.
But you and Dismayed Patriot seem to dismiss the obvious implications of all of this. Not only did Democrats need Republicans to pass this, as a party, the Republicans more than stepped up to the plate in doing so. It was a Bipartisan effort, through and through.
As you say, end of story.
That is not true. I am presenting it as something the majority of the Democratic party wanted and was something JFK had been pursuing and was then authored, had a majority Democrat vote for, and then signed into law by a Democrat President. That's the only claim I've made. Did 100% of Southern Republicans vote against it? Yes! Did Republicans attempt to capitalize on the fact that there was a rift within the Democrat party between the Northern liberal Democrats and the Christian conservative Southern Democrats? Yes!
With that said, I still fully applaud the Northern Republicans for voting for the civil rights act. They were a minority party but their majority also supported the bills which I fully recognize. But they certainly were NOT the ones who "made it happen" as they often seem to claim as they try to distance themselves from their white conservative Christian Southern Democrat roots.
We know the Republicans saw an opportunity and capitalized on the rift in the Democratic party and they did in fact pursue a 'Southern Strategy' that yielded results. What the total numbers are and how long it took is debatable, but the results are not. Today, the vast majority of the white conservative Christian Southern Republicans, that continue to fly confederate flags and defend memorials and celebrations of the confederacy and the Antebellum, just a generation ago, were the very white conservative Christian Democrats that ran those same States their descendants are running today.
It's very telling how all the attempted defenses avoid the facts and realities and try to tell a new rewritten, "whitewashed" version to create some fantasy so that these bigots can escape any responsibility while also maintaining their grip of power on those States and are now trying to destroy the very laws that gave black Americans a chance for representation in these still, deeply racist States.
While there weren't very many Republican representatives in the South at the time, just 12 of them, they did represent their districts of white Republicans who voted them into office and 100% of those Southern Republican representatives and Senators votes against the civil rights act. They were representing their fellow Republicans in the South and we know for a fact they started a campaign to capitalize on the rift in the Democratic party which they used to rebuild the Republican party. And even those within the Republican party at that time saw the danger of the alliance that was being made with the rightwing religious conservative in the South.
I believe I am the first person here who ever seeded the information about who voted how on the Civil Rights Act. That was many years ago and I found it because someone here was saying the Republicans are the ones who wanted the act passed and the Democrats didnt. I am well aware it took votes from both parties to pass.
There have been some true dumbasses here who liked to say that the Democrats are the party of slavery and didnt even want to pass the civil rights bill. One has to be phenomenally dense to believe the focus and the tone of the parties hasn't one eightied since the civil rights act . Barry Goldwater was a major force against the Civil Rights Act, and the GOP darling in 1964 and that was the start of the turn of the Republican Party toward the conservatism that flipped the switch.
[✘]
The opposition to the Civil Rights Act came from conservatives. In 1964 there were conservative Democrats .
The opposition came from rightwing Southern conservatives who at the time called themselves Democrats or Dixiecrats. The big split that happened in the Democratic party was that Northern Democrats started to lean left politically which their rightwing Southern conservative fellows refused to do which is why there was a rift to exploit by Republicans. The Republican party at that time started a hard push to the right embracing rightwing Christian conservatives, the same ones that Barry Goldwater warned his party about.
Well if you say so, I guess it must be true.
barry saw his prophecy come true during his lifetime. there's only one proven way for americans to deal with those that are anti-democracy, anti-constitution, anti-american, and refuse to live with those long accepted traditional american values. any attack on the US constitution is an attack on every american. while once a cohesive part off our culture, some organized religions have been transitioning from a somewhat benign part of american culture into a business that sells intangibles at best or an outright legal scam at worst. right or wrong, americans decide what's best for america, not some parasitic organization living off our evolving american culture, like most tax exempt christo-fascist churches are doing.
Actually, you more or less say it's true. Let's examine it.
So...
I don't need to support it, as anyone can just look it up for themselves in seconds. Doesn't require a lot of research. But you are saying that even if you did bother to look it up and find that I'm right, you're arbitrarily going to dismiss the information as a part of my argument. That's quite the magic wand you're rocking there.
And this is the part that tells us you have no idea what I'm talking about. Where on earth did you get the idea I was trying to claim the people in the pictures you posted were anarchists? How did you arrive there??? And, if it is a red herring (it is), it's one you created, not me. So, yes. Let's dispense with it.
Which brings us to the point I was making. Voting for a party doesn't mean one is a part of that party. National Socialism and the GOP platform have very little overlap. The same goes for Anarchists and Democrats. That is the point I was making when I used the Anarchist example and Democrats. People don't have to share the values of the party they vote for. They just do so because they think they most closely match it or, if they are political activists, try to work from within to change it. In the cases of Anarchists and white supremacists though, neither has a chance of doing that, in my opinion.
I understand what you're saying here but let's fill that in a little more. Essentially what you're doing is reframing, with good reason, the dynamics behind the vote on the RCA. I think you do so to disassociate the Southern Democrats from the party and, again, with a good reason. After all, 95% of Northern Democrats voted for the bill, indicating fundamental differences.
Thing is, if you do that for the Southern Democrats, you have to do it for the Southern Republicans and for the same reason. After all, 85% of Northern Republicans also voted for the bill.
I do take issue with the "liberal/moderate vs conservative" description. I do not think that the issue can be so neatly categorized, as there are plenty of liberal/moderate conservatives. I haven't researched this enough to be sure, but I suspect that many of the Northern Republicans were exactly that.
Again, true, but this is simply trying to disassociate the Southern Democrats from the portion of their party's overall support for the CRA. If you do that, then it's fair for Republicans to do the same, as northern Republicans supported the bill by 85%. If you want to do that, meaning just leave the Southern Democrats and Republicans out of it, fine. But that just adds to the fact this wasn't simply a Democratic show. It was completely bipartisan. The idea that Democrats passed the bill is nonsense. Although co-sponsoring wasn't a thing as we know it today back then, Rep. William McCulloch (R) in the house, and Sen. Everett Dirksen (R) in the Senate were crucial for the passage of the bill. In other words, it was people in both parties working together. You know, like how it's supposed to be.
[✘]
[✘]
It's so normal for people to immediately jump in and condemn a picture rather than wait for an investigation. Some new reporting on this issue..
Optical illusion swastika flags
That's some crazy pile of bullshit.
Republicans... can't live with 'em, can't conquer Poland without 'em.
Yes. It was pretty apparent to me. But those "sources" used that excuse because they knew somebody would buy it. It was an insult to the intelligence of their audience. Either that, or they knew their audience could see the swastika perfectly well, but wouldn't mind.
... closet nazi's, but a different closet from where they hide their sexuality ...
From Google AI
It's really quite amazing to see what lengths those in deep denial will go to avoid accepting reality. Trying to weasel out of this claiming conspiracy level spy shit is hilarious though.
I guess it's still way better than having to defend their hero's suspected pedophile tendencies ...
JFK Jr. planted the flag there to signal to Q its time for "The Storm".
Next they're going to claim the optical illusion swastika flags were created using Jewish space lasers. Sick.
the swastikas are invisible to the maga neo-nazi's ...
The swastikas are a devotional symbol to the maga neo-nazis.
it's the new christo-fascist cross ...
.