Op/Ed Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64,
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.washingtonpost.com /opinions/2022/09/28/racism-survey-prri-maga-republicans/
Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
Jennifer Rubin 5-6 minutes 9/28/2022
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute . The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post. She is the author of “Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy from Donald Trump.” Twitter
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
MAGA racist ? Say it aint so.
I didn't bother reading the article past the first paragraph, since what it states in that paragraph is egregiously wrong. The transcripts containing the "very fine people on both sides" quote is available for anyone to read. If you bother to read them, you'll see the above paragraph takes what Trump said out of context, presumably for propaganda purposes. Since this is so, I see no reason to bother with the rest of it.
If you would like to discuss Donald Trump's response to Charlottesville I'll be happy to do it. Trump's handling of the situation was actually quite a bit worse than most people remember. For example, do you remember that Trump so badly botched his initial response on Saturday early afternoon that he had to come back and make another statement on the following Monday during a trip he had planned to trump Tower in New York City?
Besides the botching, there is another huge problem with Trump's comments. As president of the United States Trump either knew or should have known, because it was widely publicized, that the "Unite The Right "rally at Charlottesville that day was a white supremacy event. The permit the city gave for the event was given to a known, high profile white supremacist. White supremacist groups from around the country came to take part. Why on earth would Trump go out of his way to say there were fine people on both sides?
Frankly, those who defend Trump in all this don't have a leg to stand on.
This first article refers to what Trump said on Saturday, the day of the rally
www.cnn.com /2017/08/12/politics/trump-charlottesville-statement/index.html
Donald Trump’s incredibly unpresidential statement on Charlottesville
Chris Cillizza 6-7 minutes 8/12/2017
CNN —
A group of white supremacists – screaming racial, ethnic and misogynistic epithets – rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday . One person was killed and 19 others were injured when a car sped into a group of counter-protesters.
This is what the President of the United States said about it:
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama. This has been going on for a long, long time.”
It’s hard to imagine a less presidential statement in a time in which the country looks to its elected leader to stand up against intolerance and hatred.
Picking a “worst” from Donald Trump’s statement – delivered from his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club – isn’t easy. But, the emphasis of “on many sides” – Trump repeated that phrase twice – is, I think, the low ebb.
Both sides don’t scream racist and anti-Semitic things at people with whom they disagree. They don’t base a belief system on the superiority of one race over others. They don’t get into fistfights with people who don’t see things their way. They don’t create chaos and leave a trail of injured behind them.
Arguing that “both sides do it” deeply misunderstands the hate and intolerance at the core of this “Unite the Right” rally. These people are bigots. They are hate-filled. This is not just a protest where things, unfortunately, got violent. Violence sits at the heart of their warped belief system.
Trying to fit these hate-mongers into the political/ideological spectrum – which appears to be what Trump is doing – speaks to his failure to grasp what’s at play here. This is not a “conservatives say this, liberals say that” sort of situation. We all should stand against this sort of violent intolerance and work to eradicate it from our society – whether Democrat, Republican, Independent or not political in the least.
What Trump failed to do is what he has always promised to do: Speak blunt truths. The people gathered in Charlottesville this weekend are white supremacists, driven by hate and intolerance. Period. There is no “other side” doing similar things here.
“Mr. President - we must call evil by its name,” tweeted Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado. “These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.” Tweeted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio , another fellow Republican: “Very important for the nation to hear @potus describe events in #Charlottesville for what they are, a terror attack by #whitesupremacists.”
What Trump is doing – wittingly or unwittingly – is giving cover to the sort of beliefs (and I use that word lightly) on display in Charlottesville today.
Chalking it all up to a violent political rhetoric that occurs on both sides and has been around for a very long time contextualizes and normalizes the behavior of people who should not be normalized. It is not everyday political rhetoric to scream epithets at people who don’t look like you or worship like you. Trump’s right that this sort of behavior has existed on American society’s fringes for a long time – but what we as a nation, led by our presidents, have always done is call it out for what it is: radical racism that has no place in our world.
So, that’s the big one. But there are other things in Trump’s statement that are also worth calling out – most notably “not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama.”
What Trump is doing here is pre-emptively absolving himself of blame for creating a political climate in the country in which people like these “Unite the Right” demonstrators feel emboldened enough to rally in public. Not my fault, Trump is saying. There were hate groups and hate speech under Obama too!
With someone dead and more than two dozen people injured, this is, of course, not the time for assigning blame. Or for making political calculations. This is a time to say: We stand together against what we saw in Charlottesville today. Trump didn’t do that. Not even close.
Then, last but not least, is what Trump said a few paragraphs after his “on many sides” comment. Here it is:
“Our country is doing very well in so many ways. We have record – just absolute record employment. We have unemployment, the lowest it’s been in almost 17 years. We have companies pouring into our country. Foxconn and car companies, and so many others, they’re coming back to our country. We’re renegotiating trade deals to make them great for our country and great for the American worker. We have so many incredible things happening in our country. So when I watch Charlottesville, to me it’s very, very sad.”
Really? A pivot to an I-am-not-getting-enough-credit-for-all-the-good-I-am-doing-in-the-country line? With scenes of hatred splashed across TV screens? With someone dead?
This speech is not the time to tout your accomplishments. I mean “we’re renegotiating trade deals to make them great for our country”? Who thought that was a good thing to say in the same speech in which Trump, theoretically, was trying to reassure people that what we all saw in Charlottesville is not, fundamentally, who we are?
That no one – starting and ending with the President – raised a red flag about tacking on a laundry list of accomplishments to a speech that should have simply condemned the behavior in Charlottesville and called to our better angels, is staggering, even for this White House.
There are moments where we as a country look to our president to exemplify the best in us. They don’t happen every day. Sometimes they don’t happen every year. But, when they do happen, we need the person we elected to lead us to, you know, lead us.
Trump did the opposite today.
This article refers to the second statement 2 days later
www.politifact.com /article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
By Angie Drobnic Holan April 26, 2019 14-18 minutes 4/26/2019
On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump’s initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden declared his 2020 candidacy for the Democratic nomination and the presidency by recalling the events in Charlottesville and Trump’s comments. "With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said.
The next day, Trump responded, saying "If you look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals." Trump also said he would defeat Biden "very easily."
We wanted to look at Trump’s comments in their original context. Here is a transcript of the questions Trump answered that addressed the Charlottesville controversy in the days after it happened. (His specific remarks about "very fine people, on both sides" come in the final third of the transcript.)
• • •
Reporter : "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"
Trump : "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."
Reporter : "Forty-eight hours."
Trump : "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement.
"So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to --
Reporter : "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?"
Trump : "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it."
Reporter : "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?"
Trump : "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --"
Reporter : (Inaudible)
Trump : "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened.
"Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said.
"And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts."
(crosstalk)
Reporter : "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?"
Trump : "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters --
Reporter : "Nazis were there."
Reporter : "David Duke was there."
Trump : "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts.
"It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts."
Reporter : "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?"
Trump : "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.
(crosstalk)
Reporter : "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?"
Trump : "Well, we’ll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly."
(crosstalk)
Reporter : "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville."
Trump : "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead."
Reporter : "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --"
Trump : "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me."
Reporter : "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --"
Trump : "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt?
"Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day --
" I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent."
Reporter : "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?"
Trump : "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee."
Reporter : "Should that statue be taken down?"
Trump : "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
"So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."
Reporter : "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?"
Trump : "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located."
Reporter : "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?"
Trump : "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations.
"We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be.
"And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important."
Reporter : "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"
Trump : "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch.
"But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.
Reporter : (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"
Trump : "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
Reporter : "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump : "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter : "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump : "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
Reporter : "I do love Thomas Jefferson."
Trump : "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Reporter : "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."
Trump : "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.
"Does anybody have a final --
Reporter : "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn’t get health care --
Trump : "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure."
Reporter : "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?"
Trump : "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out."
Reporter : "When will you be reaching out?"
Trump : "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it.
"Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you."
This ONE of the idiotic things Trump said
They had a permit. Who had that permit?
Jason Kessler?
Yes, they did.
It isn't about defending Trump. It's about being factual about what he said in context. You even post a transcript of what he said in that press conference where all of us can read it and still insist he was speaking about the neo-Nazis being good people. He clearly denounced them. What "others" he may have been referring to I can't say other than perhaps he assumed there must have been protesters not associated with the supremacists in attendance. Not an irrational assumption because there were and continue to be peaceful opposition to the removal of statuary.
In any case, he denounced the Supremacists and the violence committed by both sides that day, as he should have. Which brings up another point. Whether we like it or not, those supremacists had the right to do have their march. They had a permit for it. If the Left wasn't doing everything it can think of to give neo-Nazis and their ilk a platform to speak from, they wouldn't be the small problem that they are. Thing is, the Left needs these Supremacists. They want them. That way they have something to herd the cattle with. Problem is, there just aren't enough of them to suit their purposes, which is why the FBI is spreading the events of Jan 6th into seemingly unrelated categories to give the illusion there's more of a problem out there than there is.
Nope. If the Left actually cared to solve the problem, they'd stop doing all they can to give supremacists every platform they can get their hands on. Instead, they and their trained media outlets would ignore them. Give them no airtime. When I was younger, my neck of the woods had an infestation of supremacists trying to get somewhere. They'd put on their robes and stand on some public building's steps and get about two or three minutes of airtime on the news. And you know what? They were the only ones there. Nobody paid them any attention. They just looked like a bunch of retards that everyone assumed lived in places with no electricity. They were eventually brought down by police and sent to prison because pretty much all of these types seem to be tax evaders or some other kind of criminal and the whole thing went away with barely a fuss. Serioulsy. If we all just ignored them they'd just fade away like they always do after sticking their heads out.
But you guys aren't about to let that happen. Instead, what you guys do is attach every last bit of opposition to your political agenda to a conspiracy on the right to destroy democracy, even though you guys are the one's destroying it by your very actions in attaching everything to conspiracies. We've seen it in Hitler's propaganda machines. Stalin's. Mao's and all the rest of them. And America has fallen so far that now it's happening here. Congratulations, JR. I almost hope you guys win so that all the cattle you guys lead around by the nose can see just what they worked so hard to lose.
Thank you for your time and have a nice night.
On August 12, 2017, Donald Trump was the president of the United States. In response to violence at a white supremacist rally he claimed in effect that both sides were at fault. The fact that you can try and defend this is astonishing.
Was Trump stupid or dishonest? There is no other possibility.
His original statement on the rally and the violence was considered so questionable and ineffective that he had to "clarify" what he meant 48 hours later. This isnt my opinion, it is the fact of what happened.
Both sides were at fault, one side went their looking for trouble and the other side was looking to dish it out...
But then we know that the trump haters like to claim their opinions as truth...
Get lost.
You have got to be kidding me. One side went there to spread their hate, directed at both blacks and Jews. The other lived there. Permit or not, they are not equal.
Trump out of the equation, those people were disgusting. That can't be argued.
Didn't say they weren't disgusting, but it take two sides to make a fight... The whole episode was disgusting from any angle..
Claiming that only one side was disgusting is saying the other side was justified for their bad actions...
And in any measure is revealing of the biases of opinion...
Both sides were just as disgusting in their race hatred, and that can't be argued either...
No. Not acceptable. There is "no other side".
People marching at night chatting "Blacks will not replace us! Jews will not replace us!" is not the equivalent of people being offended by a statue.
And the only ones who did any killing there were the pigs who did the chanting. That makes them very unequal. The only ones who chanted hateful things were them.
The debate about the statue can go on and on, as can the intentions of removing them, but no one there said, "Whites will not replace us."
Sure there is.
He could be stupid AND dishonest.
Not remotely.
I agree.
But here's the thing about America, Perrie.... even disgusting people have constitutional rights.
One set of disgusting people came from all over the country to exercise their constitutional right to express their disgusting ideology. The other set of disgusting people actively and illegally attempted to interfere with the lawful exercise of that constitutional right.
We're talking about two sets of disgusting people engaged in disgusting behavior.
Jack,
Again, they are not equally disgusting. Yes, those pigs had the right to march, but their message is what I am talking about, and that is not equal.
Look, I grew up in a town filled with ex-American Nazis (the Bund), and as a Jew who had Kike thrown in her face way too many times to count, I don't make excuses for these kinds of people.
It shouldn't be that a person has to live in your shoes, to get it.
And your bias shows...
Of Course you have a right to be as biased as you like... but two wrongs do not make a right...
Neither side was right....
You know, a person can experience things without being biased. It's called using your intelligence and knowing right from wrong.
Please read my words again...they had the right to protest, but their message was not equal, which is what you keep missing.
BTW, please do not take a personal experience and use it as a weapon. And thank you for not demonstrating this:
I too was under the opinion that counter protesters did not have a permit until I recently learned that they did.
But part of me questions the wisdom of permitting two groups of armed adversaries to show up at the same time at the same place to avail themselves of their first amendment rights.
We all remember how the crying Nazi got arrested for using chemical weapons (mace) at the Unite the Right rally. I also remember from watching Vice News, which was embedded with his group during the rally, that the crying Nazi was also maced at the rally. That's an awful lot of free speech and mace, if you ask me. And I was kind of wondering why no Antifa members were arrested for using mace that day.
Contrast that fatal riot to how free speech was handled at the last few Democratic National Conventions. There were "free speech zones" quite a distance from the convention halls. Maybe that's a bit too little free speech?
I think everyone has a right to be heard in a timely manner. Maybe just not in the same place at the same time.
And they don't have a right to be heard by me if I don't want to listen. (I'm not interested in listening to neo-Nazis. I'll read about the neo-Nazi threat in condensed form if I have to.)
I'm talking about behavior.
I don't expect you to excuse either group. That's the point.
I expect you, as an educated person, to acknowledge the danger of rationalizing the visitation of violence upon people because they "say things we don't like". The objectionable "message" does not remove the counter-protesters' accountability for their actions.
There is no justification for replacing Nazi fascism with Hippie fascism.
Once it becomes acceptable to club a Nazi over the head because you don't like his message, it becomes acceptable to club you over your head if somebody doesn't like your message.
Jack,
Violence is never to be condoned. That being said, they came there for a fight and they found one. Their activity the night before the next day's big event was meant to antagonize. Meant to bring on the reaction. Marching through streets with torches at night chanting hateful stuff tends to do that. The rest was a brawl. I think that both parties got arrested for their part in that.
The messaging though was very different.
They had a permit, but not for Lee Park/Emancipation Park, which supposedly is where the fighting started. Which is part of the problem. They went to the Nazis instead of staying within their permit.
Terrible idea, obviously.
TBF, the clerk issuing the permits weeks in advance would have no way to know both groups would be armed.
Exactly.
That's the problem Perrie. It gets condoned all the time as long as it's perpetrated by liberals. We've seen everything from "mostly peaceful" protests which set cities on fire to a full blown declaration of independence from the United States that Seattle officials just stood there and watched.....for a month.
They ALL came there looking for a fight. BOTH groups' activity the night before was meant to antagonize.
Yes. Absolutely.
A persons biases are based upon their experiences and their judgment of the experience, that is true for everyone including you... Any conclusion made afterwards based upon those experiences and recollections and the inherent judgments that go with them are by definition biased... Not everyone judges things the same way and that is the truth of it... The problem I see here is others are trying to impute their biases on others and in so doing are judging them based upon their biases...
It's not weaponizing a personal experience especially when you are offering it as an explanation of your position... When you offer it you are declaring your judgment of the situation in public then it comes under scrutiny and everyone else's judgment as to whether they will accept your opinion of what happened...
I for one do not, cause it doesn't fit the actual facts... Both sides had a legal right to be there, but neither side had the right to impose their beliefs on the other... Or commit violence on the other... Hence they were both wrong...
Taking any other position is imposing a personal belief on it and claiming that said belief is the only justified truth of the matter... When in actuality it is just the expression of a persons own biased judgment... I disagree with your position neither side was right both sides were wrong...
It pains me that you cannot see that simple truth.......
But since you don't seem to be able to it reveals your biases, and no one else's...
You never have to live in another's shoes to understand, but one must be willing to understand for that to not happen... There is way to much of that chickenshit that goes on around here...
Exactly!
In that scenario no one has any rights...
In my opinion, there should be no remaining statues to Confederate figures. Thy should all come down, but peacefully.
If one was really objective, there is no reason to pay tribute to Confederate generals, or even the common soldier.
Many Americans are very ignorant of the "Lost Cause", a post civil war effort to rehabilitate the confederacy in popular opinion that was widespread and lasted decades. In some ways adherence to the LOst cause mythology still exists.
The Lost Cause mythology can be summed up in the phrase "the south will rise again". The construction of these statues, by the hundreds was a way to keep the Lost Cause alive while also reminding southern blacks who was really in charge during Jim Crow.
A lot gets said about the "fine people" who wanted to protest on behalf of keeping the Robert E Lee statue up at Charlottesville.
What sort of "fine people" attend a rally that was known to be sponsored by white supremacist groups? And it was known.
My educated guess is that most of these "fine people" on the confederate side were quite racist.
Some folks are claiming that the hateful Nazi thug who killed Heather Hayer - said she had it coming. That she was a shrieking counter protestor engaged in a riot at the time.
Nice speech.
I guess you are bias-free. Come on. You come with your own set of biases. The only difference is I was upfront about where my opinions come from.
Here is a simple truth. Everyone has a bias. So do you.
I already said this, twice in fact... And I didn't exclude myself...
My point is everyone is biased, and it takes a bigger person than most to admit it... But as demonstrated, no one likes to admit it, including you...
So you're saying you're the bigger person?
Chuckle!
I really tried to stay out of this, but don't any of you ever learn?
[Deleted] Here you have the seeder again reciting the rhetoric of Kendi and you allowed others to frame the argument about protestors. The issue was about statues...being torn down...not just confederate ones. When it comes to those who are offended by statues as well as those who want them preserved: There are good people on either side.
While I agree with the enmity of "Nazi's" that some have, I happen to hate Marxists, who tear down the statues of George Washington and killed a dozen people in 2020, far worse.
That's right the protestors "aren't equal"
Well said Brother... And although I hate both National Socialists (Nazi's) and Marxist/Socialists (communists are just an example), I'm not so biased to see that they both operate in the same fashion to create their own visions of utopia... A utopia that is the bane of all free people...
They are recognized by their patterns of behavior, they are what they do...
We have both in this nation and they are vocal and dominate the media today, and some of them have political power and are at the point where they think they can destroy their enemies... (and all non-believers are the enemy)
This is going to be more of a test of this nations founding ideals than the civil war was... Our foundation is either strong and will survive the current attempt at usurpation, or it isn't and will become another in a long line of autocracies that name themselves as democratic republics...
My personal belief is we will survive this... But it does look dire at this point...
Your endless projection, deflection, denial, and delusion.
That ideology of their's has to go. Only one side will prevail....The American people or the left.
Which is why the left has worked so tirelessly to indoctrinate in public education, to change the mind set of the young. Get them while they are young and you have them for many years.
No one on this earth can make a good case for keeping Confederate statues up.
The fact that we still have some who try is really sad.
Indoctrinate them how?
By teaching them tolerance and compassion for others?
OMG! How horrible!
What and who do they hurt?...............or is this like the answer to the question "How has anything Trump did adversely affect you and yours?" The answer being "yeah but".
If that's all it was nobody would have any problems. But to throw your words back at you, you're better than this. You know what else they are doing in early schools that fall under the guidelines of indoctrination.
“And although I hate…”
Perhaps that is our most serious collective problem.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?
For years we listened to your nonsense about Trumps criminality "not hurting anyone", now we also have to listen to you say that statues of traitors "dont hurt anyone".
So then the answer IS "yeah but". Got it
I would be OK with them coming down, but I would say "lawfully" instead of "peacefully". Once it is legally decided, I don't care if it's peaceful or not.
But I'm also OK with allowing whatever bunch of raving nutjobs to march around the things before they come down shouting whatever shitheaded foolishness they want. In fact I kind of insist it be allowed. Because I live in a free country, and I intend for it to stay that way.
Now, if one or more of these Nazi scumbags wants to chain himself to a statue or otherwise break the law... excellent! He can share a cell with the left-wing lunatic who showed up to illegally "counter-protest". They can shout quotes from Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto at each other for the next few years, or whatever it is batshit people do when confined in small spaces.
We will absolutely survive this.
It looks dire because it isn't. You will know it's dire when regular working men and women get involved, in which case this foolishness will get sorted out right away.
We're in that phase of the program where the children are fighting in the back seat of the station wagon and the moms are trying to encourage everybody to be nice..... but it hasn't annoyed the dads enough to pull the car over yet.
So Heather Hayer had it coming to her huh Jack?
[deleted]
[She wasn't illegally doing anything.] She had a permit just like those Nazi scum deleted
No, I don't. Enlighten me. My children are all grown up and I have no grandchildren so I don't know what's going on in public schools.
Is it because they're trying to teach the correct version of history versus the one that was rammed down my throat?
I dont know why we cant just teach US history honestly. It doesnt effect my personal opinion of Thomas Jefferson to learn that he held slaves until the end of his life. He was both a great thinker about democracy and political philosophy and a racially prejudiced hypocrite who kept human beings as property.
He can be seen as both at the same time and that is what we should be teaching our kids about him.
Apparently not.
So you just make this shit up as you go along?
You're saying that the LEFT are not American people.
Ain't that some shit?
I agree
Because your definition of "honestly" involves 12 years of courses on white liberal guilt.
I would love for them to teach ALL of history, but they don't need to push the 1619 Project any more than they need to push that the European White Man was the savior of the planet. Teach honest history and leave the partisan bullshit on the sidelines where it belongs. Thomas Jefferson was one of the founding fathers of the United States. Yes he did some things that are wrong as based on today's ideals but he was also a man of his time and that should not be ignored, none of the founding fathers should be condemned for their actions in their time against today's standards.
Young minds are still growing and don't mature until they are about 25. Young children don't need to be taught they might be trans or gay or hetro, they have time to learn. Let them be children. That's something that seems to be missing, allowing children to be children. At these early years they need to be taught the primary skills they need which include reading, writing and mathematics and how to think, they don't need to learn about anal sex or how they might be gay or trans.
I have to say, Snuffy, that I like what you say. I don't disagree with any of it
I would love for honest history to be taught, but too many people are in the pursuit of perfection based on their standards of today and ignore the standards from the time period of the person they are teaching about.
Thomas Jefferson wrote quite a bit about slavery, and race itself for that matter. He knew that slavery could not continue on in America indefinitely, but was more than willing to put off ending it until a time when he would no longer be personally benefiting from it.
Whether anyone likes it or not Jefferson's reputation has been hurt over the past 30 or 40 years as more has come out about his slaveholding. The honest and objective analysis is that Jefferson was a hypocrite on slavery and was a racist who had very backwards opinions of blacks.
The real question is what should schoolchildren be taught about it?
By today's standards. Not so much by the standards of his time.
Some might think that Jefferson was ahead of his time in regards to his thoughts on slavery and race. But he was also captive of his time.
Simple answer, ALL of it. But that's the problem, isn't it. So many people don't want an honest discussion around this, they want to judge actions from 250 years ago by the standards of today. Did he own slaves? Yes, but the deeper question then is why? And you cannot answer that by using the standards and norms of today, you must answer by using the standards of his time. I cannot call him a hypocrite or a racist because I didn't personally now the man, I only know what is in books. And to judge him by today's standards is no better and an individual 250 years in the future judging you by what you have written.
Aside from the fact that they also tried to tear down George Washington, who is not a Confederate, ive told you long ago that there are people who are decendents of those who fought for the south. There is also the matter of viewing military leaders based on merit. We've been there. a mob has no right to tear down a public statue and thank God somebody made a law with prison time of ten years added to it. That put a stop to it.
You cant have it both ways - you cant say Jefferson was this revolutionary political thinker who singlehandedly expressed the desire for freedom that late 18th century colonials felt, but at the same time shield him from criticism of his views on slavery and racial equality. Jefferson , on one hand said all men are created equal and then on the other hand took part in a system that prevented that from being true.
He will be a conflicted figure of history, forever.
Vic, confederate leaders were traitors fighting for an inhuman way of treating other human beings. That is the bottom line and in that context I couldnt care less that they have descendants.
As far as military leaders getting their due, that can be done in books on tactics and strategy and not in statues and flowery poetry.
Does a mob have a right ? They have as much right as the ones who enslaved people did.
A major defense of slavery is that it was the way it was back then. Well, tearing down statues of objectionable historical figures is the way it is now.
The left are Americans whether you approve of them or not. And since you have a big swath of people you consider the left (about 50% of the people), I actually find that comment very disturbing.
Where am I trying to shield him from criticism? All I said was I cannot call him a hypocrite or a racist because I didn't personally know him. All my knowledge about him comes from books, books that are written by other people who also have their own bias. I cannot ignore that Jefferson did own slaves, but I also cannot just blindly take the words from someone else who also did not personally know Jefferson just because they wrote a book on the matter.
Of course, just like all other figures from history.
I never said that. Fifty percent may vote democrat, but the American left is less that 20% of the voting public. You seem to be talking about democrats in general.
I actually find that comment very disturbing.
I find this article very disturbing
That is an odd comment. Very few people who write history books personally knew the historical figures involved. Thomas Jefferson was a prolific writer and all of it or almost all of it still exists.
That's simply not true. Thank God you weren't in Mr DeMarco's history class. Most southerners didn't own plantations and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers fought because they felt the south had been invaded. Larger issues were never in their minda.
As far as military leaders getting their due, that can be done in books on tactics and strategy and not in statues and flowery poetry.
That would be fine if public schools taught military history. btw you don't get to make decisions on statues. The People should get to vote - ONCE.
Does a mob have a right ? They have as much right as the ones who enslaved people did.
Ahh, Kendi! You don't fight racism with racism.
A major defense of slavery is that it was the way it was back then.
Nobody defends it. You want reparations. You aren't getting any.
Do you think those who believe that America was built on "White supremacy" consider themselves American?
Which is an odd comment? There were several sentences in that post. What is it? That I refuse to call him a hypocrite or a racist because i didn't personally know him? Or that I refuse to be lead by the nose by someone who wrote a book? Or is it the unwritten sentence where I refuse to judge him by today's standards and my own biases, but would rather try to look at him based on the standards of his time?
For myself, I try to not judge people that I don't personally know and interact with.
Those of us on the right are also Americans whether you approve of them or not. We have the same constitutional rights as you.
You probably need to read the 1619 Project or some such thing, because your knowledge of the history of this country is woeful.
Vic, give us a year in which anti-black racism was not widespread in America. Let's start it with the revolutionary era.
I'm hoping for "poorly expressed" as opposed to actually disturbing, but your point stands.
This is America. We're not afraid of ideologies. We outgrew that "red scare" nonsense a long time ago.
Have you ever looked at the Confederate Constitution? Or the states Declarations Of Secession? Or editorials from southern newspapers of the time? The Confederacy fought the Civil War in order to protect their institution of slavery. This is not controversial to knowledgeable people.
What about the statues of Lincoln that was toppled here in Portland? Was Lincoln a racist? Did he own slaves? Then there is the elk statue in down town Portland. Are elk racists?
I don't know about racist, but I do know they are tasty.
Vic I am only going by what you have said about the dems in the past. That they are under the control of leftist and by extension those who vote for them?
This is your own comment to me:
Why? Are we not talking about a small part of the Republican party?
I would hope so, Jack. That was my point.
Where did you say it about yourself? I didn't see you include yourself.
And what I said was:
Which means we learn to temper and tame our biases.
And do me a favor, stop talking to me if you are going to make it personal.
The 1619 projects knowledge of history is woeful, so woeful that they need to write their own version like they were there and call it the absolute truth...
The epitome of rewriting history into what you want it to be ignoring everything that doesn't fit the political agenda... Just like the Marxists did in Soviet Russia...
Disturbing and woefully ignorant.
I said I didn't exclude myself in making my point twice after you tried to turn it back at me...
Personal? nothing personal. but if your going to hold your position as the absolute truth, you invite such being called into question...
And your intelligent enough to know this... Your truth is not my truth nor is it anyone else's truth... it is everyone's right to choose to agree with yours or mine or hold their own, but that is the basis of freedom, we all have the right to choose...
So please do not tell everyone who holds a different opinion than yours that they are wrong based solely upon your biases...
That's one of the huge problems with this society today, everyone thinks they can do just that, that their biases are the correct view and if disagreed with, eventually resort to violence...
I completely reject this paradigm in society today, I didn't go for it in the '60's and I won't today... My experience tells me it's the same bigotry we fought in the '60's, I didn't go for it then and won't today...
Bad behavior is exactly that, bad behavior... there is no justification for such therefore both sides were wrong...
Typical, anyone who holds a different belief than you is ignorant... Got it...
So someone could be, lets say , a full blown nazi today, and because it is their truth everyone else should just regard it as normal and to be accepted.
We get it Nowhere Man (name never more fitting), you think neo Nazis , white supremacists , and alt-right lunatics are no different from the people who vocally and physically oppose them. Praise the lord, your comments align perfectly with Trump's.
Was I talking to you ?
Now this is a perfect example of a seriously ignorant comment...
There we go, another perfectly ignorant comment... {chuckle} (and it is an accusation as well, got nothing intelligent to say bring up Trump)
It's also a perfect example of not having a clue.... So no you don't get it..
No, you said that comment to Perrie, about my comments to her... (like that excuses the ignorance)
No, if you were actually paying attention you would have noticed that I was agreeing with a comment Perrie made to Vic. Nadda to do with you, boo.
How does finding a specific belief disturbing and ignorant translate — in your mind — into holding ANY belief of disagreement as disturbing and ignorant?
If Amy believes (this is merely an example I just made up) that 50% of the nation are 'radical leftists' and Bob (who disagrees with Amy's belief) finds her specifically stated belief to be disturbing and ignorant, would it be rational to presume Bob holds ANY belief with which he disagrees to be disturbing and ignorant?
ANSWER: No, it would be irrational to presume Bob holds any belief with which he disagrees to be disturbing and ignorant.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ignorant it actually is, the point being it is easy to assume that a presumption is being held without any serious discussion to determine one way or the other...
It is hugely presumptive and, using your example, ignorant to assume or presuppose the intent or belief of the poster without finding the truth...
There is also the matter of experience based presupposing which is rampant on this fora no matter how wrongfully conceived... But that is a discussion better left for a different day...
One of the interesting things here in this example is the presupposing by both of you that Perrie needs to be supported blindly, that she isn't capable of discussing things like this on her own...
Are we opening a discussion on the lunacy of everybody having their own personal truth?
OMG... I'll let anyone reading the thread to decide for themselves.
You just did it again. I never held my position out as absolute truth.
Please point out where I said anyone was wrong. You can't because I didn't.
So breaking into a house is the same as murder? I think not.
Of course you do, but you're pretending not to so you can act self-righteous.
No, but breaking into a Klansman's house is just as bad as breaking into a SJW's house.
You can't show up armed, leave your permitted protest site, walk two blocks, start a gang fight and then claim the other guys are worse than you because they say terrible shit.
Such rambling. Yeah, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Nobody has suggested otherwise. And of course it is presumptive for someone to presuppose intent ... pretty much the definition of the word.
In short, you offered nothing, but presented it as if you were making a rebuttal.
This ⇡ is a perfect example of a lie. Nowhere have I even hinted that Perrie needs to be supported blindly or that she is not capable of discussing topics on her own. You just made this up. Maybe if we were always there backing up most of what Perrie writes you might have a decent hypothesis. But that is not even remotely close to reality. In short, again, you just made this up.
What does full blown mean?
Agreed
That is fair for the day of. It is not an accurate description of what happened the night before. I believe the word legally would have been incitement.
They had no right to march on UVA property. That was not covered by their permit, either. So, they were out of line, before Saturday. Also, they were the only ones who committed a homicide. That makes them not equal.
Absolutely. And the police were on the way. So why start a fight?
The fact that nobody died in a melee with clubs is luck. So no, they don't get a pass on that.
I realize how deeply you detest these Nazis, and I support you. I grew up in a mostly Jewish neighborhood and went to majority Jewish schools. I know enough Jews well enough to know I'll never really know what it's like to actually be one, but I do sympathize.
But we need to stop making excuses for violent thugs behaving stupidly just because they happen to oppose the same people we do. When they behave like the people they detest they become indistinguishable.
The Nazis came looking for a fight, and if those kids had stayed out of the way, that fight would have been with trained, heavily armed LEOs who would have gone full Viking as soon as one of their own was attacked. Not sorry to say I would have much preferred that outcome.
This is the tiresome MO of some - and they consider the case closed. Nuff said. Period. End of sentence!!! Act as though we have been bested somehow by them.
AMEN BROTHER!
CHUCKLE!
Some do go on and on and on saying a whole lot of nothing, a whole of arrogance and ignorance, saying a whole lot of nothing. Some think they're so profound but they're so arrogant in their ignorance, so agnorant.
That poster is now on ignore. I can't stand the hate and the agnorance and the both sides bullshit. I've had enough.
"What does full blown mean?"
trumpturd or a trumpturd supporter.
It appears NWM has nothing but ignorant insults for all and then blaming both sides.
They're not being taught about anal sex or being gay or transgender or hetero. You made that up.
That's all you have NWM>
Let’s not twist the facts because they are racist assholes. They had every right to be on the campus.
First, no permit was required for any protest on the University of Virginia campus, either from the university (which has jurisdiction on the campus) or the city (which does not).
"The University does not require permits to use public spaces," said University of Virginia spokesman Anthony P. de Bruyn. "Existing university policy speaks only to the ability to access university-owned facilities such as academic buildings and performance venues."
He added that "the University of Virginia is a public institution, and as such must abide by state and federal law regarding the general public’s right to access outdoor spaces. This includes open spaces such as … our historic Lawn."
Donald Trump said there were fine people on both sides, which is offensive and disturbing.
People like you want to approach this situation sideways, as if the fact that people physically opposed white supremacy is more negatively important than the white supremacist ideology.
There were not "fine people on both sides" unless you want to call those who knowingly attended a rally sponsored by white supremacist groups so they could protest the planned removal of a monument to a slave owning Confederate general who committed treason against the United States, "fine people".
You figure it out.
I find it extremely disturbing.
So I'm not an American? Or a person?
So I'm not an American or a person? Those on the Left aren't Americans or people?
I see the six folks who agree with you - the same thumbs up buddies who agree with all your agnorance.
Yes, you did.
You tell me...Is the left wing of the democratic party now in control of the party?
Why? Are we not talking about a small part of the Republican party?
Are we? I see nothing but slander in this seed, as well as from your president. They are talking about 74 Million Americans.
Vic, you think that Trump was one of America's greatest presidents who is being persecuted.
Your concepts of 'slander' need some work.
That's all we see on your 'seeds'. Against the left. Against Democrats.
Well...I would go more with stupid and soft, but I'm not easily offended.
What he should have said was "there were violent thugs on both sides".
No John, you're just desperate to make excuses for people in your Cult of Leftist Politics.
Yes, those Nazis are horrific people...who should have been left alone until their heads exploded, they attacked law enforcement and got a proper beat down.
You want an effective "counter protest"? Reserve that park 80 yards away, book a death metal band...preferably a Jewish one...and crank the volume.
Let em shout till their lungs fall out. Nobody will hear them.
Thanks, if anyone knew what [deleted] meant, I knew that it would be you.
Come on. People being antagonized act out. That is normal human nature. No one there expected that. It felt like they were being violated purposely, and they were. How about all the people who act out and stop criminals even though they know that the police were on the way (btw, I am pretty no one knew that police were on the way, )
I appreciate that. And since you know, you also know that we say "Never again", or Bad things happen when good people do nothing.
The night before, those were just college students. On the day of, I am not sure who they were.
That would have been the ideal outcome, but the kids the night of were just reacting, which was the one of outcome the neo Nazis wanted. The other would have been that the college students did nothing, proving they were submissive, as per their ideology.
I knew a trumpturd supporter/enabler would know what that meant too.
Which supporter are you thinking of?
No, he should have denounced the white supremacists without saying there were fine people on both sides. That is what he should have done. Everyone who went to that rally knew it was a white supremacist event. It was all over the local news in Charlottesville.
Trolling again already. Whod'a thunk it?
Do you?? If these Nazis came marching down your street in formation with torches, are you trying to tell me you would grab a baseball bat to go out and try to face them down??
Perrie, I'm 6'4", 210 lbs, former competitive athlete and I lift weights 2-3 times a week. I'M sure as HELL not squaring off against a bunch of armed, brown shirt shitheads. That's what they want. I'm calling the police. That's why we have them.
There is no excuse for their behavior, and we need to stop pretending there is.
I do know that. But when you get in a street brawl you could easily have avoided, you stop being a "good person". We have made excuses, coddled, and enabled a generation of our kids when we should have found our spine and taught them how to deal with these situations like actual "good people".
There is nothing submissive about walking off, going to a frat party, and having a good laugh about the pathetic bastards desperately attempting to cling to some importance that only ever existed in their sad little minds.
Or.... back up 20 yards, get your phone out and start filming. Give them a thumbs up. Encourage them. "Do you support our cause?"... "Nah, bro. I'm just here to film you getting tased. Shit is gonna be epic."
Nothing asserts dominance over an angry man better than laughing at him.
I'm sure you believe so. After all, we mustn't tolerate criticism of fellow Cult members.
Including the armed, violent thugs who went there to fight said white supremacists.
I would suggest you do some research before making comments but we both know that's too much work for you to attempt. I'm providing links but your past posting has shown that you won't read links anyway. Guess it's easier to just keep your head in the sand and throw bullshit around than actually read.
Jack, thy have excused and defended violence as just acting out for over two years now. you think they are going to change their minds at the direction of their support at this late date?
They have settled on their course of action, there is one thing that will stop this and has always stopped this...
When the Seattle police chief was retired out of service cause she was persona non grata anymore cause she wouldn't cave to the leftists, the black shirt Antifa thugs in their escalades with their coded secure radio communications went to march on her home to do their destruction thing... They were met by dozens of the neighbors from the community in the streets armed with AR-15's ready to go... the thugs were told "Not in this neighborhood" You know what they did? got on their radios and called it off, they were coming from three different directions in a planned and organized manner with equipment that normal people do not have access to... What was funny, is watching them scurry away like the scared little punks they were...
This will end when all these little whiney punks get the idea through their pea brained sized heads that normal people will not submit once they get fed up with their bullshite...
Just like the riots they put on everytime they get their panties in a bunch, from watts in the '60's to today's examples, where the people come out armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighborhoods the cowards run away crying their eyes out about how unfair they are being treated... Notwithstanding how unfair they are treating everyone else around them, they weren't getting what they want and to hell with anyone else so they were justified...
That's the reality of what is coming to America... AS soon as the people have had enough, they will drive the punks and their excusers/defenders back behind the baseboards where they belong...
Just like the cockroaches they emulate...
Yeah like the "summer of love" we recently went thru, with many demonstrations of the government letting them do such damage and the good people stood by and watched while the media exalted in broadcasting the destruction and the politicians saying they were just "Acting out" in frustration?
What happens when the rest of the people of the country finally get frustrated enough to break out their weapons and start "acting out" in frustration over the destruction being perpetrated on them?
Will they be just as justified in their acts? like the goons and punk criminals are today claimed to be by the government?
First of all, that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Second, I have never addressed what happened with those demonstrations. And in NY, I never heard any praise for what happened in Washington. In fact, we were kind of dumbfounded that it was allowed.
Destruction of property and killing people are not equivalent.
That's funny
To say you are off track from what the seed is about would be putting it mildly.
Um...I have some credibility issues with your sources.
So they are going to learn the definitions of different types of sex. Think about this. When a kid is sexually abused by someone they will be able to accurately describe what their attacker did to them. Do you think that maybe this is the thought process behind these new mandates?
Newsmax?
The sources just don't read that way to me, that doesn't feel right. I mean, the closest to that would be where it states that curriculum must include instruction on consent. But that reads to me that they are going to teach on what consent means before two people have sex, not so that a victim can properly identify what a rapist did to them.
Yeah John, like always you want to limit the discussion to what you want it to be, and what was that?
[deleted]
But such generic seeding needs something to grow and live other than your limited one track view, so it goes off in different directions like into a discussion of the behaviors of racists and their supporters...
But then when it turns against you, and your supporters, you try to cut it off, [deleted]
As far as the seed, there are thousands of bigots willing to spout the exact same bullshite to turn up the heat and create dissention and kaos...
[deleted]
Think about how cool it would have been to have actually seen it.
Or think about the number of Youtube views to see them tear-gassed and clubbed. It's like some sort of cathartic social justice MMA beatdown.
What is your point?
Far right-wing religious prudes don't educate their children about sex.
I learned sex on the street back in the 60s. The free love generation.
My dad said once that you're going to want to touch girls soon...DON"T!
That was the extent of my parental sex ed.
What is yours?
How do you know?
What did you learn?
That's a whole lot of hateful racist ignorance and arrogance right there. A bunch of made up shit I must say regarding whatever happened in Seattle. Sounds like some Qnon or whatever straight up conspiracy bullshit there.
Calling people cockroaches like some folks around here refer to folks as vermin.
Better title:
"Racist far left winger that pushes CRT and books like : "White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity" teams with the most insane pundit in America to push nonsense."
Jennifer Rubin is the most insane pundit in America? You must live a sheltered life.
Jennifer Rubin is the most insane pundit in America?
Undoubtedly. No one is close.
Then why use her article?
Does that actually surprise anyone?
This is just a cleverly worded “leftist” dog whistle.
Nothing more.
[Deleted]
Coming from the party of “African Americans are inferior so we need to “help” them.” This is hysterical!
That's coming from you all.
In Florida, the Miami Dade Republican party has 5 Proud Boys on its executive committee.
No problem they fit right in.
Every time I hear someone try to talk abut institutional racism or it's nastier version of "structural" racism I tune them out, turn them off, or tear up their papers...
I don't listen or pay any attention to racists...
You must have MAGA leaders on ignore then.
Some of them, along with most democrats...
Yep, the party of slavery.
Using their own logic, since they think all Confederate monuments should be removed, they should remove themselves as well.
Toot sweet!
Far right wing fascism is far right wing fascism. Fuck all fascists.
We had a recent conservative poster in another thread point out all of the things the left is doing that is destroying this country. Each point was easily linked, but alas, we have a far left poster call the points bullshit, even with media reports over the past couple of years having leftist politicians, ON VIDEO, saying they support those policies.
This left wing poster said all of the points were bullshit, and when called on it to prove how they were wrong, that left wing poster absolutely refused to answer in any way.
So let's see if you can maybe answer one question.
What policies have republicans enacted or are now pushing that are fascist, and do you even know what a fascist is?
Please, when you make an attempt to answer, check your feelings at the door. Actual fascist policies are wanted.
So you don't like to listen to the truth - that racism is systemic in many places across the US and racism is even on the books in many places.
Feel free to list these "many places".
Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. There may be a reply, I expect the standard two-word reply. Just don't wait for an actual answer.
Oh I know I'm not going to get an answer. Just more bullshit.
That wasn't really a serious request of Tessy was it?
Purina will admit it was wrong to invade Ukraine and give the Ukrainian president a Lewinsky before you will get a list.
Of course. But it's not like we will see anything short of personal attacks and deflection.
Feel free to list the places in the US where there is no racism.
Please list the places in the US where there is no racism.
Nope. It doesn't work that way in the real world. Tessy made the assertion "racism is systemic in many places across the US and racism is even on the books in many places" she should be providing that list.
But since you want to jump right in there, lets see your list. I'm sure it will match Tessy's.
Here are the places with the most racism, look how many are in the south.
Based on this data, the 15 most discriminatory cities in the U.S. are:
Thought Chicago would be farther up.
Most Racist Cities in America 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)
Gee, did all those old Southern racist Democrats move from the South and just spread out in the north?
I didnt ask you where you think the most racism is, I asked you to LIST places where there is no racism.
My question to you implies, correctly, that racism is everywhere. Do you want me to list every county in the United States? It will take up a lot of room.
Your "question" implies you are dodging my request. Can't say I'm not surprised that you cannot provide a list of places where racism is "on the books. Nothing but lip service from you and the person I originally ask the list from.
You are a waste of time, but nice to know you are so bathed in white grievance.
There it is. You get proven wrong and a hypocrite and you go for the personal attacks. At least you're consistent.
It would certainly appear so to the unbiased.
Nothing here has proven me wrong and you are a waste of time.
List the places in the US where there is no racism.
Your home it seems. But we will never know for sure....................seems at times you DO have a problem with whites.
People who think whites are victims of racism are the subject of the seeded article.
Are you saying they aren't in all cases? I sure hope not or you are lost beyond retrieval.
JR I recall an exchange we had in the past where I was noted all the shootings and deaths in Chicago on a given weekend. Your response was its gang members just shooting and killing each other. Is that racist?
Are you saying whites can never be the victim of racism?
Not enough white people to be a racist city.
Thanks for reinforcing my point in 5.2.15
I'm saying that the whites who complain about racism against whites are the subjects of the seeded article.
There are undoubtedly a lot of whites, a figure in the millions, who believe that white people are the true victims of racism. It is absurd.
You prove them partially right every fucking day John. This
comment alone solidifies it. And TRUE victims? Hardly. Victims to an extent, yes. Daily you diss whites, practically ALL whites for the people of color's plight. And it is bullshit. They are victims of their own circumstances just as whites are victims of their own circumstances.
Nope, you're right John. Pay no attention to JJ. All he does is deflect.
Tell the truth, if it were up to you there would still be the same amount of statues to confederate figures as there always was.
Something about it being "history". Who in their right mind honors disgraceful history? But racists do.
That nonsense speaks for itself. Black people, and other racial minorities, were oppressed in the US for hundreds of years. White people have never been oppressed.
History is history. You learn from it or choose to wipe it out to spare your feeble sensibilities. You, it seems, choose the latter. I don't know one single person who avoids getting close to or passing by statues or any other signs of the past. As a matter of fact, I doubt very many people of all walks of life know who the hell they are looking at let alone the past associated with them. Only those LOOKING to be offended or a victim or those who choose to practice virtue signaling to show what a good person they are. Much like those NIMBY asswipes in Maaatha's Vineyard and those "good people" in The Bronx who are concerned about the temporary "housing" at their holy ground at Orchard Beach. Once it hits home it's a different story.
If the statues dont mean anything to you one way or the other, why do you care if some people want to take them down? They mean something to them.
I doubt if you even know why all those statues were put up.
I dont need to learn the history of the Confederacy by looking at statues (which dont tell history anyway). There are hundreds of books written about the Civil War, slavery, the Confederacy, and the Lost Cause. Try one or two sometime and maybe you wont spout such silly things.
Didn't say they didn't mean anything to me either way. And many of the "objectors" don't know what they mean either. They "mean" nothing unless one gets educated on the history. They are, like you, just looking for something to be offended by. They mean history from which we learn either the good or the bad. I doubt anyone offended knows the true stories behind any of them. Only the time period in which the subject of the statue existed. They have even taken down a couple of statues of people who were on the side of abolishing slavery. It's bullshit John. They hurt no one except those who fucking want to be hurt.............by something.........ANYTHING.
Don't tell history? Then WTF is wrong with leaving them up. You aren't making any sense. And BTW, is your apostrophe key not working? I notice you never use it in contractions. Just curious
Have you ever read the Declarations of the Cause Of Secession? All of the seceding southern states wrote lengthy explanations of why they were leaving the Union and forming the Confederacy. These documents are, to a large extent, filled with racism , justification for slavery as a "good" thing, and declarations of white supremacy. I have seen all of them. How many have you looked at?
I have read some of them. It was the times John and bitching, pissing, and moaning about it now won't change a damned thing. It's history. As said, something to be learned from. We never got close to heading back down that road showing we have grown from it. At the time, slavery was considered good for the south as it allowed commerce at low cost. The north was more highly industrialized and the south couldn't catch up.
Between slavery and Jim Crow there were 400 years of oppression against blacks in America, and you think everyone should just "get over it" in the 50 or 60 years since the passage of civil rights legislation. That is neither human nature or the purpose of studying history.
If you really believe that, your understanding of US history is sophomoric at best.
White people in America have never been oppressed by another race. If you think otherwise, please elaborate.
Yet we have many whites today who believe that whites are the true victims of racism. It is ridiculous.
What the fuck good does it do to dwell on it? All it does is keep the divide alive and well. And you study history so as to either utilize it for justification of good deeds or leave it behind like the plague so as NOT to repeat it. I see you and many like you choose the former. It's bullshit. It creates the appearance that people of color are still oppressed and that they can't get above it. It keeps blacks on the plantation and gives the mistaken appearance that virtue signalers are their only hope when indeed, it is they who perpetuate the perceived divide only want to have someone beholden to them.
When whites are subject to constant pounding such as you do on pretty much a daily basis, that makes them victims because of those actions/attitudes. Because there is racism, whites are the only ones who practice it is the attitude of you and yours therefore subjecting them to constant bashing for what a small percentage of them do/believe. One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch.
a) there is a huge number of white racists
b) black racism is almost completely "reactionary" in other words racist blacks are reacting to the way they have been treated by whites. One of the most well known black racists of the past 20 years was Rev Jeremiah Wright "Obama's pastor" at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Rev Wright specifically said, and wrote about it, that the reason he was against whites was because of how they had historically treated black people in America. He wasnt against whites because they are white, he had a good reason. That is the case with most black racists.
Key word, "historically". Another one who will never let it go and live outside of victimhood. It shows a lack of true character.
Are you actually dumb enough to justify racism?
You seem to think that "historically" means it is over. Nonsense.
No, but you are dumb enough to not understand what i said.
I fully understand it. You are dumb enough to try to justify racism because they are "reacting to the way they have been treated by whites.".
Only you don't quite grasp that makes you no better than Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright. And on top of it all you actually expect everybody to ignore your racism.
Things aren't always what they seem. If you don't fucking let it go, it will stay alive forever. And you seem dedicated to just that.
As I have said, white people who think they are victims are the topic of this seed. Thanks for being an educational tool for this article.
It’s funny John, that in my experience the most racist folks out there are the people accusing others of being racist.
White European immigrants who migrated here in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s experienced prejudice for many years. Hell, I was still called “bohunk” by adults in the 60’s and 70’s.
My grandparents were two of those immigrants. They were Slavs from from what is now Slovakia but they weren’t alone. Greeks, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, etc were all treated like second class citizens.
To quote an influential sociologist of the the time:
“If he proves himself a man and acquires wealth and cleans himself up very well, we might receive him in a generation or two. But at present, he is far beneath us and the burden of proof rests with him”
- 1911 Henry Pratt Fairchild
If you could only give that chip on your shoulder a rest every once in awhile, you might learn ..... the rest of the story.
Yes
Certain posters are on ignore - you should be too - but at any rate - some folks have a lot of nerve asking for proof or back up of something when they NEVER EVER PROVIDE PROOF OR BACK UP OF ANYTHING.
You are so very correct today, you NEVER provide any proof of the bullshit you spout. If you want to put me on ignore, go ahead. I mostly ignore what you post because it's usually just a drive-by snipe or some other bullshit comment pulled out of left field.
That is absolutely hilarious coming from you. I wonder if I am one of those on ignore.
That's all you have - personal attacks, deflection, projection, denial, delusion.
Nope, that's what you do snuffy
I notice you haven't provided that list. Until then you have nothing to say.
Wait... you mean to tell me that she hasn't provided any proof or backed up what she said?
Imagine that....
I know right.
"Wait... you mean to tell me that she hasn't provided any proof or backed up what she said?
Imagine that.... "
The brilliance of the trumpturd enablers/supporters just shines through with those genius statements!
Oh darn, and here I was hoping you were gonna put me on ignore... really, feel free to do so.
But not only did you not put me on ignore, you took the time to sent me an IM just to call me a name. Really, how mature..
So now you get to be a member of our club. She does it to all of us.
"White people have never been oppressed."
I'm sure there are a fair number of Irish in this country who would disagree with that blanket statement.
Jews, Catholics, Arabs, Italians and Irish would all disagree.
You spelled bullshit wrong...................
Some people really do need to look in a full length mirror and it ain't me.
[Deleted]
Agreed, but the Irish were the first to come to mind.
[Deleted]
Were the Irish oppressed for being white? Dont be silly.
Why are you responding with a personal attack/insult to me from a personal attack/insult to me from Jeremy???????????????????
[Deleted]
[What's your excuse?]
[deleted]
Why are you and Ed personally attacking and insulting me?
What's that stupid shit you're ranting?
For being Irish, doesn't ethnocentric bigotry count?
Go back to your original quote. You said nothing about oppressed for being white. You only said oppressed. Now whose being silly?
I took it for granted that on an article about racism people would understand I was talking about the Irish being oppressed , or not, because of their race.
Exactly, ethnocentric bigotry doesn’t count.
Bigotry and oppression is still bigotry and oppression and does not have to be racial, but you are trying to make it that way.
What is your explanation for the racism found in some Asian countries, Arab countries and African countries?
You seem to have a hard time focusing on America.
I certainly saw it in Australia and New Zealand.
I saw local racism in:
Same with most of those places for me as well. Need to add Vietnam and Thailand to the list.
Did it to me a while back. Has not made that mistake since.
Good adds, I thought that I had Thailand on but left them off. Racisms isn't only a Whiter people phenomena, maybe JR has never travelled outside of the USA.
Thats because the seeded article, and MAGA is about America. You know, Make AMERICA Great Again.
You seem to be incapable of staying on topic.
You seem to think that racism is an exclusive white, American phenomena. Some of us have lived outside of this country for a number of years and travelled to many more and we know that racism occurs in many people around the world.
Like some MAGA supporters, you seem very USA-Centric. There is a bigger world out there, please try to experience some of it before it's too late.
I suggest you Google the difference between racism and bigotry as they are pretty closely related. Perhaps you will learn something.
Or home state for that matter.
The only one being silly here is you.
Trying to justify that bigotry and prejudice based on skin color is somehow worse than bigotry and prejudice based on origin/nationality.
Let go of that chip on your shoulders John. Just let it go.
Some people unfortunately have 4x4's on their shoulders that make it very hard to let go.
Yep, the programming from the hive is just too strong to resist for some folks.
So... an angry leftist declares that anybody who doesn't adhere to religious zealotry for looney leftism is a racist.
That's not something you see every day.
[deleted]
Several times a day actually. Almost hourly.
Lol ...... bazinga!
Just only on days that end with a "Y".
Its interesting to watch how worked up these people get when an article like this is seeded. What they dont understand is that they are just verifying the premises in the article.
Nobody’s worked up about anything except for the fact that democrat racists keep projecting their beliefs onto others
[deleted]
Some folks think racism will be on the ballot in November.
Or that will be the spin when the GOP takes the House.
I see you've got that ass backwards, per usual.
So everyone who disagrees with you or whomever you promote is a racist... It isn't we who are verifying it....
I know! It’s strange isn’t it? I have never heard a republican say that African Americans are too stupid to get an ID to vote, it’s always our democrat friends saying that.
They call that the soft bigotry of low expectations.
But we regularly hear Republicans say that African Americans are too stupid to vote for the party that really has their best interests at heart. Apparently Republicans believe black Americans are so stupid they've been duped into voting for Democrats who, according to the confederate flag waving Republicans, are the real "racists".
Anyone who can't see how white right wing conservative Christian Republicans have embraced white supremacy, embraced neo-Nazi's, embraced the confederate flag waving confederate monument defending bigots across the south and welcomed their votes and support, have their heads shoved so far up their own ass it looks like they're twenty weeks pregnant.
Many on the left have made it a habit to call anyone black not voting Democrat as an Uncle Tom. That really shows the tolerance of some Democrats.
The history of the Democratic Party is quite clear.
Didn't a Democratic President say something about how if they ain't voting for Democrats, then they ain't really black?
Oh look at that - the was a Democratic President that said JUST THAT. And its the same bumbling fool looking for dead people at conferences.
You always hand them their asses very nicely DP.
Simply delusional
Yes maga-its are delusional and simple.
Let's see. Which party keeps saying that blacks are to stupid to figure out how to get ID? That would be the Democrat party.
Bingo!
Nope. Not even close.
He can kiss mine!
Nothing new there .....
Very seldom is.
Yup. Exactly right.
He ain't ever handed me mine, and neither have you for that matter except in your dreams and you know it. You have a nice day now.
Yes, when people have a different opinion than yours, they are simply just worked up and stupid .... hilarious!
Of course. The old "You're a racist and if you deny it it only proves you're a racist" meme.
Seems to me it is the folks that are "worked up" that sometimes seed these kind of articles to begin with.
Exactly!!! And a daily occurrence unfortunately.
There is obviously only one correct answer to this question.
Who says social sciences don't involve exact answers?
I just want to know what the Confederate legacy is
Nascar?
Good one!
NASCAR = No Actual Stock Cars Are Racing. Nothing like it used to be,
Casino’s and tax free cigarettes? At least for some of the racists who fought for the confederacy.
Please show me a southern state that has tax free cigarettes. And not all casinos are in southern states
The Indian reservations around Oklahoma, the 5 civilized tribes were huge slave owners and fought on behalf of the confederacy. in fact, they didn't give up their slaves until the 13th was passed and they had a new treaty.
You're calling Native Americans racist?
So you think people who own slaves and fought for the confederacy aren't racist!
I ain't touching this one
That is true George, 5 tribes out of over 600 did fight for the confederacy, but it split the Cherokee and Creek nations who joined the north. Let me tell you why they are called the Five Civilized Tribes. It was because they tried to adopt the white man's ways so they would not be forced from the SE of the US. Most of us know how that turned out, Jackson and the Trail of Tears are well know to most Americans of course owning slaves was part of ''being like the whites''.
The confederacy promised the 5 tribes their own state if they joined and the confederacy won the Civil war.
A bad decision by the Five Tribes and they paid dearly for it in the end.
Now, you didn't add in that many nations fought for the North and of particular note is ''Company K'' of the 1st Michigan Sharpshooters an all-Native company that fought in many of the most fierce battles of the Civil War. There was General Grant's aide, Col. Ely Parker a member of the Seneca nation who was at Appomattox for Lee's surrender.
There was a third group called the ''Loyal Indians'' this is a great link to a comprehensive and accurate article and this is an excerpt from it.
.
BTW, one of my ancestors fought with Company K of the 1st Michigan Sharpshooters. You should google it there is a great deal of information on the company and their battles.
Thanks for the history, Kav.
West Virginia wasn't part of the Confederacy.
ranch dressing on everything and sickly sweet tea
Is that why you family joined the Confederacy?
You make that sound like a bad thing
I think ranch is great on most things. I put it on top of rice and incorporate it into some fried fish.
Sweet tea is a hell of a lot better than unsweet tea or some form of fruity infused tea.
McDonalds has the best sweet tea.
Quoting Abraham Lincoln isn't going to make what the liberals want to do to this nation any more palatable to the rest of us...
Remember the proclamation that the 78 million + that voted against your party are radicals trying to destroy the nation and democracy, and most of them support the republican party...
What the fuck is wrong with conservatives...
Everything is doom and gloom unless they can be in charge.
The ones wanting to destroy the country are the same ones claiming the other side is doing it.
Classic projection.
If you think most of the country agrees with the extreme right wing antics, you are mistaken.
Only one party in American history assembled a mob to break windows and enter the Capitol while the electoral college results were being certified.
I'm often open to noting similarities between the two parties but this glaring difference speaks for itself.
And the democrats were the only party in the nations history to take up weapons in open warfare against the nation...
And that was also against Republican control of the government as well..
Not much has changed in 160 years has it....
Democrats are the ones saying that 78+ million republicans are trying to destroy the nation...
It speaks for itself... Democrat claims NEVER meet reality...
Silly.
WE are going to find out in a few weeks just how much the American citizen adores the current left wing antics... Aren't we......
just like 160 years ago, gotta keep those slaves on the plantation....
More racist screed?
Interesting, the only real insurrection in American history, by Democrats, is silly... 500,000 people dead, silly, Democrats trying to keep the slaves on the plantation, silly...
If you say so...
If your talking about democrat racism, then yes, the same racist screed democrats have put forth for a century and a half...
All you have is projection. Nothing more.
Yup! SSDD
Sounds like a whole lot of hate and ignorance and arrogance to me, as usual.
You should really take a closer look at your history lessons.
Sad that you all have to go back hundreds of years just to try to take the eyes off of where we all know the racists reside in this day and age.
Deny it all you want, most sane people live in the here and now and know the truth.
Not trying to hide in the annals of yore...
All they have. They trip over themselves trying to change the narrative from their own short comings.
Those shortcomings are endless. LOL.
No one needs to hide in the annals of yore. Just look at who is the race obsessed party that favors racial discrimination by the government. Democrats are, and always have been, the race obsessed party. It’s the basis of the party at this point.
So you can't debunk my comment. See what you fail to realize is that it's still happening today and it's coming from the same group of people. Even right here on NT we can see racism coming from the Democrats and those that support them. It's not like it's hidden. You all put it right out there smiling ear to ear.
Horseshit.
Once again nothing but projection.
You all really need to come up with something new as your old bullshit doesn't fly like it use to.
Oh no, the Dems were a different makeup a hundred years ago.
Really pathetic.
You can't debunk my comment. I'm cool with that. I really didn't expect you to actually do more than flap you lips in a failed attempt to prove anything I provided wrong. You want to live under a rock that's all on you.
So sad that some people do not know where we are going in the future unless they are willing to look at where we have been in the past and learn from it because history does often repeat itself.
Are these the debating techniques they teach on Fox News?
Anytime someone points to the the GOP in 2022 as being overtly racist, remind them that the Democrats were the party of overt racism in 1829?
FFS.
Are you trying to say that if the Democrats could shed their racism between 1829 and 2022 there is hope that the Republicans could shed THEIR racism by the year 2210 or so?
if the Democrats could shed their racism
If democrats could pull that off it would be amazing!
It’s democrats who think African Americans are too stupid to get an ID to vote. Not republicans.
It’s democrats who think African Americans are too stupid to get into college without their help, not republicans.
it’s democrats that think African Americans can’t compete for jobs without their help. Not republicans
It is the democrat president who said African American women are too stupid to raise their own children. Not a republican.
The democrat party is racist to the core. Built on racism.
In 1860 the Republican Party was the party of the northern states. In the presidential election that year the Republican Lincoln won the presidency despite not getting a single electoral vote from a southern state. Over a long period of time the northern states became more associated with the Democratic Party , as they are today.
The geographical regions didnt change their political beliefs, but what party represented those beliefs did. They flipped. For a long time Democratic interests in Congress were represented by southern senators and congresspeople, who often voted as a solid bloc. Gradually during the FD Roosevelt and Truman administrations , those administrations began to show more and more interest in being the party that was welcoming to blacks. This attention to modernity eventually ate away at southern loyalty to the Democratic Party and the shift was underway. Over the decades we got to the point we are at now where 80-90 percent of blacks vote Democrat in every national election.
It is incomprehensible how any right winger with a brain cannot acknowledge that things have changed from 1860.
It's Republicans who HOPE African Americans are too stupid to get an ID to vote.
And it's Republicans who think white people are too stupid to compete with Asians in Harvard. Bit of a wash, if you ask me.
You seem to be awfully focused on your resentments with African Americans. Get some help before you hurt people around you in your community.
When used as an adjective, the correct form of Democrat is Democratic.
How many Black people do you know that don't have an ID?
It's an interesting point you make but I am not sure it is completely accurate.
There has been a lot of migration of people in the USA over the last 60 to 80 years, or longer. White people moved out of the Appalachian mountains and into the Rust Belt. That had a dramatic effect. (The South brought their Confederate monuments with them to some of the darnedest places.) The cities had a lot of white flight after the 1960s. Not all of it was to adjacent suburbs. Some of it was to different parts of the country for a different kind of life in response to deindustrialization.
You can't compare NYC in the mid 20th century, with all its working class white people, to the NYC of today without noticing dramatic differences, racial and otherwise. And NYC makes up around 40% of New York State's total population.
I would say neither the regions, the people, nor the parties in the USA have been fixed.
But there is no way I am going sight seeing in Mississippi. I'm thinking the past is not only not forgotten but it isn't even past there.
Oh I know racial populations shifted. My point is that for many many decades the Democratic Party represented the Jim Crow south, but a time came when the top leaders of the Democratic Party, particularly Truman and later Kennedy ( to a much lesser extent FDR) began to make their party more welcoming to blacks. The more welcoming the party became to blacks the more the conservative southern Democrats sought greener pastures somewhere else.
Funny you should ask. I know one African American whose ID situation got down to a passport and no drivers license and the passport was all beat up and people would not accept it. They have since fixed their problem.
I was personally once in the position of having my most recent school ID and birth certificate burned in a fire. That put me in a bit of a spot having to prove who I was to get IDs reissued.
Conversely, with all these websites like Spokeo it isn't that hard for someone to learn the answers to the most common security questions and fake your identity.
There's got to be at least a dozen websites that will tell you where a person has lived and who their relatives and parents are.
Also, here in NYC a lot of us don't drive at all. The kinds of IDs a lot of people have are school and employer ID cards.
[deleted]
Not to mention that the Democrat instigated Civil War cost this country approx 620,000 lives from 1861 to 1865.
I specifically and purposely did not state either political party as far as racism is concerned as I believe racism transcends political boundaries and has been around since long before there were any, so please do not try to put words in my mouth.
Who were republicans at the time.
[Deleted]
Oh darn, wrong again.
That was 620,000 lives on both Union and Confederate sides. Have a good day now.
Bingo!
Democrats by definition are 'd' democractic.
Shhhhh.
Many of today's Democrats have never fully come to grip with their party's racist past. They will pretend that it wasn't Democrats fighting for slavery.
Exactly, we want to hear insightful, fresh analysis, give us more like:
I'm not sure why you think your comment negates what Tessy said. It was geographic location, not political party , that primarily determined whether one was pro or anti-slavery.
And as usual it was money, those that had the most to loose were much more likely to embrace slavery. They also couldn't envision what their life would be like with 1/3rd of the Southern population being freed slaves.
All I can say is read the thread. The Civil War was started by 7 Southern states who formed the Confederacy and attempted to break away from the United States. What political party held the majority in the South during that time?
Here, let me even lay it out for you...
The comment in 10.1.33 is from Tessylo who clearly states in rebuttle to 10.1.31 that it was the republicans who instigated the Civil War. A simple reading of history shows they were Democrats at the time. So while yes, it was 7 Southern states who formed the Confederacy, Tessylo is clearly trying to say those 7 states were Republican and that is just not true.
Democrats will try any tricks to distance themselves from their party history.
TBH, just like Republicans will. A lot of those Dixiecrats broke away from the Democrat party and joined the Republican party later on after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. That was when the partisan makeup of the South changed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The two political parties have morphed into the worst thing possible for the country and this country won't get back on track until we remove BOTH parties from their power.
To put that number in perspective, with today's population, an equivalent amount of casualties would include around 6.5 million dead and tens of millions more wounded, diseased and psychologically damaged. Add to that the destruction of property, livestock, infrastructure and the price was catastrophic and unimaginable by most Americans today.
Tessy may not have worded her reply the best, but I dont think she was saying that the Democrats at the time were also the Republicans of the time, which she would have to have been saying to make you correct.
I think she is saying that present day Republicans are the "descendants" of the Democrats of that day.
Frankly, people who continue, against all logic, to contend that the Democratic (and Republican) parties didnt change over the 150 years since the end of the Civil War are out of their minds.
Watch the spin coming!
I thought that in comparison to many of her posts, she was unusually articulate.
Even the Trump voters living in the North, East and West?
What I have a hard time reconciling, if the racist democrats all became republicans, why is the south less racist now compared to when democrats were in charge? And why are the most racist cities in the North where democrats are now in charge? You have to suspend reality to make the claim.
Just out of curiosity, I see this claim a lot, Byrd, Wallace and Clinton are lifetime racist democrats.
Can you define “a lot” or name at least 5 who charged parties?
Indeed, I understand that there is a Black Reverse Migration underway. It started small in the 70s, increased in the 90s, and has continued to accelerate since. The majority of those abandoning the East Coast, North and West are primarily younger, college-educated Blacks. They have been moving to Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina.
Apparently, frustration over fewer employment opportunities, discrimination, and school/housing segregation as well as urban race riots along with a more favorable business climate are primary factors in this ongoing migration.
“Can you define “a lot” or name at least 5 who charged parties?”
That question may require further explanation, clarification…relevance?
Hopefully not to the person I asked, he is intelligent enough.
I live in the south and the racism is not less compared to the rest of the country.
I swear, just make up things and act like it is truth. Pathetic spin.
Facts are a bitch
Based on this data, the 15 most discriminatory cities in the U.S. are:
“Based on this data, the 15 most discriminatory cities in the U.S. are:”
And? Seems the Bible Belt may need some tightening up…
What metrics are you using?
Tightening up?
According to that it is mostly the mid west....
My own eyes and ears. Try it some time.
So an subjective, anecdotal analysis.
I prefer a more comprehensive, objective analysis. Have you ever tried data informed, decision making?
“So an subjective, anecdotal analisis.”
Forget all grammatical constraints…stand your ground, state your case!
So you admit you ignore what you see and hear and prefer a spreadsheet...
Democrat controlled, that is the point.
Uh huh. You actually have no point. Just trying to project and say nu uh, it is you not me....
"The night that Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his special assistant Bill Moyers was surprised to find the president looking melancholy in his bedroom. Moyers later wrote that when he asked what was wrong, Johnson replied, “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.”
To understand some of the reasons the South went from a largely Democratic region to a primarily Republican area today, just follow the decades of debate over racial issues in the United States.
“The Democratic party came to be more than a political party in the South—it came to be a defender of a way of life,” Goldfield says. “And that way of life was the restoration as much as possible of white supremacy … The Confederate statues you see all around were primarily erected by Democrats.”
But when President Harry S. Truman, a Democratic Southerner, introduced a pro-civil rights platform at the party’s 1948 convention, a faction walked out.
These defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” held a separate convention in Birmingham, Alabama. There, they nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, a staunch opposer of civil rights, to run for president on their “States’ Rights” ticket. Although Thurmond lost the election to Truman, he still won over a million popular votes.
It “was the first time since before the Civil War that the South was not solidly Democratic,” Goldfield says. “And that began the erosion of the southern influence in the Democratic party.”
After that, the majority of the South still continued to vote Democratic because it thought of the Republican party as the party of Abraham Lincoln and Reconstruction. The big break didn’t come until President Johnson, another Southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Though some Democrats had switched to the Republican party prior to this, “the defections became a flood” after Johnson signed these acts, Goldfield says. “And so the political parties began to reconstitute themselves.”
The change wasn’t total or immediate. During the late 1960s and early ‘70s, white Southerners were still transitioning away from the Democratic party (newly enfranchised black Southerners voted and continue to vote Democratic). And even as Republican Richard Nixon employed a “Southern strategy” that appealed to the racism of Southern white voters, former Alabama Governor George Wallace (who’d wanted “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”) ran as a Democrat in the 1972 presidential primaries.
By the time Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the Republican party’s hold on white Southerners was firm. Today, the Republican party remains the party of the South.
How Republicans and the 'Southern Strategy' Won Over the Once Democratic South - HISTORY
Mike Pence was once a Southern Democrat, volunteered for the Bartholomew County Democratic Party in 1976 and voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election. While in college, Pence left the Catholic Church and became an evangelical, born-again Christian. He then switched parties and ran for Congress in 1988 but lost. A few years later he tried again and won and adopted the slogan he had used on the radio, describing himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order".
This happened after the 1994 -1995 "Republican revolution" when Republicans finally completely took over the South and multiple former Southern Democratic congressmen and Senators switched parties.
"On November 9, 1994, the day after the election, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a conservative Democrat , changed parties, becoming a Republican; on March 3, 1995, Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched to the Republican side as well, increasing the GOP Senate majority.
Rather than campaigning independently in each district, Republican candidates chose to rally behind a single national program and message fronted by Georgia congressman and House Republican whip Newt Gingrich . They alleged that President Bill Clinton was not the "New Democrat" he claimed to be during his 1992 campaign, but was a "tax and spend" liberal.
By the mid-1990s, white conservatives from the South joined Republicans in other parts of the country, leading to the change in Congress. Large Republican gains were made in state houses as well when the GOP picked up twelve gubernatorial seats and 472 legislative seats. In so doing, it took control of 20 state legislatures from the Democrats. Prior to this, Republicans had not held the majority of governorships since 1972. In addition, this was the first time in 50 years that the GOP controlled a majority of state legislatures.
Other elected Southern Democrats switching parties between 1965 after the civil rights act was passed by a majority of Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic President:
Albert Watson, congress, resigned his seat as a Democrat on February 1, 1965, and then won a special election as a Republican on June 15, 1965.
Congressman Jon Jarman, Oklahoma, switched parties in 1975.
Congressman Bob Stump, Arizona, switched parties in 1982.
Congressman Phil Graham resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, 1983, and then won a special election as a Republican on February 12, 1983.
Congressman Andy Ireland, Florida, switched parties in 1984.
Congressman James W. Grant, Florida, switched parties in 1989.
Congressman Tommy Robinson, Arkansas, switched parties in 1989.
Congressman Nathan Deal, Georgia, switched parties in 1995.
Congressman Greg Laughlin, Texas, switched parties in 1995.
Congressman Billy Tauzin, Louisiana, switched parties in 1995.
Congressman Michael Parker, Mississippi, switched parties in 1995.
Senator Shelby had been elected in 1986 and 1992 as a Democrat, but switched parties in 1994
Senator Ben Campbell was elected in 1992 as a Democrat but switched parties on March 3, 1995.
Since 1995 there were many more.
Congressman Ralph Hall, Texas, switched parties in 2004.
Congressman Rodney Alexander, Louisiana, switched parties in 2004.
Congressman Parker Griffith, Alabama, switched parties in 2009.
List of United States representatives who switched parties - Wikipedia
[ Deleted ]
Empirical evidence of democrat controlled cities racism trumps feelings every time.
Yes, I'm a federal employee and my bosses require data, more than individual opinion.
Do you deny the Black Reverse Migration or due you think that the moving, young college educated Blacks don't see and hear what you do?
You can be my editor anytime.
Sure....You are nothing but an extreme partisan.
You ignore where your source even says there is no way to accurately define where is more racist.
I showed you a link from the same source that said the most growth of racism was in the Florida panhandle.
You ignore data that doesn't match your opinion.
I don't even know why or how you go off on these weird tangents and questions.
All you do is ask off the wall shit.
Hell you even admitted you are only here to troll Liberal people.
List their racist acts, Byrd racist! Clinton racist. Biden racist, you name 5 unknowns, now prove they are racists.
They are trying to make their own history.
Or they were taught things completely false.
Why do think that asking about how someone measures racisms to be a weird tangent or "off the wall".
Providing some info on the Black Reverse Migration isn't trolling unless you think that observation is malicious harassments or a personal attack. Does information contrary to your biases get a rise out of you? Is a troll anyone that you disagree with?
Oh, so now it's not good enough to prove that many conservative Southern Democrats switched parties but now we have to prove they personally did something racist?
Robert Byrd was one of the only ones who remained a Democrat but changed his conservative racist ideology and apologized for using racist insults.
" I apologize for the characterization I used on this program ... The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society" Robert Byrd
For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP) rated Byrd's voting record as being 100% in line with the NAACP's position on the thirty-three Senate bills they evaluated. Sixteen other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10,000,000 in federal funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream , and few ever expressed it more eloquently." Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda ".
Robert Byrd - Wikipedia
I would much rather have people apologize for their past, discard their racist beliefs and support the civil rights movement than a bunch of whiny worthless white racist conservative Southern Democrats simply switching parties and pretending they were never who we know they were. But I guess I shouldn't expect much from lying scheming scum bag conservative Republicans.
I just found another tangent or off the wall shit in potential racisms data by state.
The Sentencing Project compiles state-level criminal justice data from a variety of sources.
One data set looks at the racial disparity in state imprison rates per 100,000 residents. The Black to white ratio from lower to higher includes:
How does that compare to what you've seen and heard?
No, she wasn't trying to say that the Democrats at the time were also Republicans. She was quite clear. In reply to a statement that said "Not to mention that the Democrat instigated Civil War cost this country approx 620,000 lives from 1861 to 1865." she replied with "Who were republicans at the time.".
It's quite clear to me, she is trying to say that the Democrats who started the Civil War were actually Republicans. Your attempted spin to say that she really meant to say the descendants is just that, spin. And failed spin at that.
I didn't name anyone who changed parties, but DP did give quite the list down in 10.1.68. But it is well known history that when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, there were many Southern Democrats who felt betrayed by their party. Racism was at a much higher pitch back then as compared to now. And many Southern Democrats left their party to become Republicans.
Back at you...
Following the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
It's a liberal myth that most southern dems voted red after 1964.
Does that mean you think that the Sentencing Project data is wrong, irrelevant or you really have nothing to say about US racism by state?
I am curious as to why you do nothing but offer endless inane questions yet always fail to offer your own opinion.
I'm unable to divine what you mean by "back at you".
I frequently cite my information source and rarely justify my opinion with a simple, "what I've seen and heard.
I'll assume you have nothing meaningful to say here about US racism.
So you have no opinion of your own post at 80...
Of course I do, or I wouldn't have looked for and posted that data. I think that the Sentencing Project is important work to obtain a more fair and effective criminal justice system. I think it shows high incarceration rates across the general population in Southern States and a surprisingly higher racial disparity between Black and white imprisonment in Northern states and CA. I also think that sentencing disparity is just one of many measurable indicators of institutional racism.
Well said.
Well I have to say some of the people on 'your side' tend to think there is no institutional racism.
That probably my fault for failing to make it clear to you that I don't pick sides.
I don't know what you think about US institutional racism except based on where you live and what you've seen and heard in your lifetime, you think that's it's as bad or worse in the south.
That describes more than one person here on NTers, that is for sure.
I think it can be more overt and extreme in some areas. I grew up in Maryland and in a couple of towns over (this was the early 80's) had the largest klan membership in the whole of the states.
Though technically I think MD was a southern state...
Yes I can say what I have seen and heard in my lifetime as it was real world experience.
I had one man tell me one time that if his daughter ever brought home a (insert word here) he would kill them.
I know another guy that his mother calls Black children something that sounds like piglets.
Yes it is everywhere yet all of this is just a distraction to take away from the fact that most of these extremist groups tend to vote republican.
I agree that those are examples of individual racism but not state institutional.
What is find is a distraction, is that these largely ineffectual extremists groups have little to nothing to do with the institutional racism in the Urban East, North and West Coast.
I've noticed that and many that think of themselves as fact based, data-centric are anything but.
I think she mis worded what she meant to say. Why would anyone claim that individuals were both Democrat and Republican at the same time? It doesnt make the slightest bit of sense. Maybe she will clear up the confusion next time she is on.
DP, we see , all the time, this really relentless and endless effort to "show" that Democrats today are just as racist as those on the right.
This nonsense flys totally in the face of our universal perceived reality, but that doesnt stop them. It truly is a waste of time to discuss this issue with these people.
In national elections blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Democratic candidates for many many years now. Black people choose what party they prefer with their votes, not with a bunch of intentionally confusing nonsense about "reverse migration".
So you think extremist groups have not gotten into the police or corrections officers.
There was an article a while back about how some racist group had members in correctional facilities in Florida.
You try to change what is being discussed.
You are no expert, contrary to what you may think.
Hmmm. Bingo.
We have had white racism in America since the mid 1600's. This is not only undeniable, it is in writing. Race based slavery was instituted in Virginia at that point in time. We are getting close to 400 freaking years of white racism, yet there are very few "conservatives" who will even acknowledge that fact let alone try to do anything about it.
If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back that history that hurt so many
And it would be a wondrous day.
I don't know why they did the things that they did
I don't know why they said the things that was said
History's like a knife, it can cut deep inside
Words are like weapons, they wound many times
I've claimed no expertise in institutional racism but I know how to find data and analyse it. How about you and you ability to extrapolate several individual instances across the multiple governments and institutions of a region?
No, but I also know that our institutional racism long predates the groups that you are thinking of.
And in CA and MD.
No more than most here, honestly, how many more times do we need to read, the steaming pile trumpturd and his racist enablers' to remember how some feel here? I thought maybe you wanted a real discussion on US racial history, I'm sorry that I wasted your time.
Fine and dandy yet all you are doing is trying to say the North is more racist because of one aspect.
Isn't the premise of the 1619 Project is that we have little understanding of our racial history and need a reexamination of that history? Yet you seem to resist any discussion below the superficial level of our collective history. I think that it's because you are far more interested in the politics of today, than any improved understanding of our history.
Sorry, it has at least been a little interesting. My point was we went from the South turning, into institutional racism and beyond.
Plus I am a little grouchy. Have been cleaning the house today.
Once again, she was not trying to say they were both. She was very clear in trying to say they were Republicans who started the Civil War.
One aspect, huh? 10.1.52. 10.1.57. 10.1.80.
Would you like to look at housing or school segregation? Unemployment, Police killings of Blacks, etc.? You haven't offered up any metrics beyond some cruel words that you heard several people utter.
Ender was right, you insist on inserting off the wall points into these discussions. I can appreciate you wanting to steer the discussions towards what you want to talk about, but that is not always the topic. Reverse migration has very little to do with racism, nor does your constant wanting to say that northern states are as racist as southern ones. So what? All that proves is that racism is an issue everywhere in the country.
According to whom? What are the motivations for these young, college educated Black people to leave the Northern, urban liberal nirvana?
That's a bid admission from you, the only logical conclusion is then that Dems are also racists and continue it's institutionalization.
There are a LOT of conservatives and Republicans in northern states just like there are a lot of liberals in some southern states. I am not, at all, obsessed about what part of the country has the most racism, it all does.
I know people and I would bet my life that there are more racist conservatives and Republicans than there are racist liberals and Democrats. Quite a few more.
What is you explanation for the data in 10.1.80. ?
Forty years ago, many thought that Mayor Harold Washington’s victory was a turning point in Chicago's Black political power as they had broken through the Irish power structure. That might have been part of why Obama choose to go there a year later.
When Washington won, about 40% of the city was Black, now it's under 29%. Hispanics are increasingly replacing the departing Black folk.
Instead of creating a multiracial coalition between people of color and white progressives, I understand that the communities are battling each other for a greater stake in city government with redistricting as the current fight. Blacks are trying to hold on to their majority of council seats while Hispanics want to increase their seats.
The rate of violence in the South and west and the continued loss of housing, education and business investment in their communities are some of the factors in abandoning Englewood, Humboldt Park, New City and other neighborhoods.
Apparently city indifference can have greater impact than calling people names or rude behavior from a Starbucks clerk.
No it’s not enough, all the racists stayed democrats, and a few random democrats who changed parties because they no longer wanted to be associated with klan doesn’t count.
Deindustrialization of northern cities has caused white people to migrate also.
White flight certainly caused some white urban dems to migrate to the suburbs. Is Chicago, NYC, or Philadelphia losing White population now? I know here in DC, white people are replacing Black residents.
In 1970, Chocolate City here was 71% Black, 27% white and a few Hispanics. Last year the numbers were White, 45.9%, Black, 45.8% and Hispanic 11.5%.
November is coming up real fast. We will see then.
Sounds like the Democratic Party lost some members. Big deal. People have switched parties fairly often in history.
Fact remains:
As long as the South ensured Democratic control of Congress, the South was fine and acceptable to the Democratic Party.
Has anyone ever wondered why it is ONLY Democrats who insist on making some distinction between Southern members and everybody else? Has any other party done something like that?
Did the Democratic Party ever call for the ouster of their own Southern members?
The white people moving into cities now are college educated professionals.
The white people leaving cities for places where you can get a job without professional credentials are white people without professional credentials.
White flight is a pattern of the past. And it's not like people and their families who moved to the suburbs years ago are moving back into east coast cities again. If they are moving they are going west and south. They are moving to red states.
Many of the white people moving into DC are empty nesters from the surrounding suburbs.
Ask somebody who watches Fox News.
I mention it because that same history from 1829 is still visible today among the Democrats and the left. If you don't like me mentioning it them maybe, instead of ignoring that history and learn from it, you should work on learning from that history and change how the Democrats and the left act today.
Yup. SSDD.
So far, I'm very satisfied with your volunteer work here.