Democrats who were in the Klan.

[jon_berzerk]

Democrats who were in the Klan.

there was lots of them

still are lots of them

Like who? Because all the one's I've seen, like David Dukes, call themselves Republican.

https://psmag.com/how-the-kkk-helped-create-the-solid-gop-south-9dd3ad90a3e#.f23dit56e
How the KKK Helped Create the Solid GOP South

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

 

[jon_berzerk]

Democrats who were in the Klan.

there was lots of them

still are lots of them

Like who? Because all the one's I've seen, like David Dukes, call themselves Republican.

https://psmag.com/how-the-kkk-helped-create-the-solid-gop-south-9dd3ad90a3e#.f23dit56e
How the KKK Helped Create the Solid GOP South

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

So he claims.

Ready to buy that bridge now? I got other buyers yanno.

you have been marginalized long ago gal

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like who? Because all the one's I've seen, like David Dukes, call themselves Republican.

https://psmag.com/how-the-kkk-helped-create-the-solid-gop-south-9dd3ad90a3e#.f23dit56e
How the KKK Helped Create the Solid GOP South

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

 

[jon_berzerk]

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

now you are flat out lying

 

[Pogo]

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

now you are flat out lying

--- because a Klown kavorting around in a Klan Kostume would never tell a fib for the purpose of trolling politics, right? Those are what you call trustworthy people.


--- Or do you have some kind of inside info?

 

[Crixus]

Red:
I don't know that I'd call it hypocritical, but "inaccurate" is what I'd call it. One can easily show that the KKK and it's members' values were what were considered "conservative values" from the day the Klan was created right up to today. To say they were and remain the values of a given party is simply not so. The sociopolitical stance of the two major parties has shifted and with that shift, racists' party affiliation has shifted.

Oh, so if we put the actual people aside and what parties they were in and ignore which parties policies were targeted to keeping blacks segregated and impoverished for generations and instead use this nifty neato-keeno 2 dimensional horsehit political spectrum to illustrate everything, then we can see, if we squint our eyes really tight and lean way to the left that, yes, the Republicans are now the party of the KKK.....roflmao what a bunch of ignorant ass propaganda.

My God, you have no shame 320, none whatso ever.

The KKK was DEMOCRAT!

Own it, the historical record doesnt change, bubba.

"The Trees":
The rebuttals I've presented highlight the distinction between the following --

• creating a thing vs. enabling a thing's development,
• encouraging a thing's creation/development vs. acquiescing to a thing's existence/development

-- and call observers to refrain from (1) oversimplifying the matter and/or (2) exaggerating the matter.

As goes the discussion at hand, there are several "things" in play:

• the KKK organization itself,
• the attitudes the KKK's members espoused,
• the activities in which the KKK's members engaged, and
• the party to which the KKK's members belong(ed).

Looking back at how and over what point I involved myself in this thread (post #100), you'll note that I focused on one assertion the OP provides as a premise for the remainder of the post. That assertion is that "the Democrat party invented ... the Klan." That assertion is false. The Democratic Party, quite simply, did not invent the Klan. The content found at the first link I included in post #100 makes that clear.

Now you can accuse me of presenting a revisionist version of history as goes the one point I made; indeed you have done exactly that in this thread. Be that as it may, your accusation holds no water because you have yet to provide any evidence that the Democratic Party of the 1860s invented/created the KKK. You have not because none exists that it did and there is solid evidence that a band of Tennessee college students did create the KKK.

We can play philosophical games with which fallacy or blend thereof be the one(s) in play, but doing so is of little value because no matter which one it is, the undeniable fact is that the Party was not the creator of the KKK. That makes the argument invalid, regardless of the applicable fallacy(s), because it rests on a factually false premise.


"The Forest":
As for the big picture, the OP relies on a "guilt by association" line of ad hominem argumentation. Though often ad hominem lines of argument are fallacious, that one is not insofar as one is describing the Democrats and the Democratic Party extant in the days of Justice Black and Presidents Wilson, Harding and McKinley. That the OP's position is illustrative of one of the exceptions to the "guilt by association" fallacy is why I did not take exception with it.

The problem with the rest of the OP is that it attempts to equate the Democratic Party of Black, Wilson, et al with 2016's Democratic Party. Well, that too I've shown to be a factually inaccurate representation of 2016's Democratic Party. That was the point of the second link in post #100.

I have not denied that the pre-1990s Democratic Party was the party of racists and bigots. Why haven't I? Because the "Dixiecrats" didn't make a singular mass migration to the GOP immediately upon the ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. When did Southern Democrats flock to the GOP? Mostly during the Reagan and Goldwater years. That's something of an oversimplification, but if one is to hone in on key single moments in time, they are the most significant ones in modern times.

• Construction of the Racist Republican
  • Half a century ago, though he was not a racist, Barry Goldwater’s “Southern strategy” certainly contributed to the rift that still exists between the GOP and black voters because it aligned his campaign with segregationists. Even after the South’s racial attitudes were more comfortably integrated with the rest of the United States, sincere clashes in ideologies—and some inept positioning on the part of Ronald Reagan—did not heal that rift.
    
    
  • Harkening back to the ideological foundations of Barry Goldwater, which promoted federalism, and expressing the belief that the country’s culture on race had changed since 1964, Reagan pushed to lessen the federal government’s role in all American life including aspects concerned with civil rights. In fact, from his first inaugural address in which he laid out his philosophical vision, he attempted to shift the national conversation to a more universalist approach to governing with less emphasis on special interests.
    
    He contended “this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” This coincided with a conservative interpretation of fairness, which demands a society in which there is as even a playing field as possible but no expectations about results. As a consequence, Reagan’s policies often ran counter to perceived minority interests.
    
    One problem was Reagan’s style over his substance: a general lack of understanding on the Great Communicator’s part when it came to getting his message across to people of color. After all, George Wallace who had clearly been a segregationist for much of his career—who had quite literally stood in the schoolhouse door to stop black advancement—was able to win over an amazing number of black voters in his twilight years in politics.
• Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
  • It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

• DOG WHISTLE POLITICS HOW CODED RACIAL APPEALS HAVE REINVENTED RACISM AND WRECKED THE MIDDLE CLASS
  • Campaigning for president, Ronald Reagan liked to tell stories of Cadillac-driving “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In flogging these tales about the perils of welfare run amok, Reagan always denied any racism and emphasized he never mentioned race. He didn’t need to because he was blowing a dog whistle.
    
  • Reagan’s presidency also corresponded with the conservative popularization of colorblindness, which urges everyone to avoid race as the surest way to get past racial problems. This racial etiquette is widely embraced, including among liberals, yet colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics in numerous ways.

So while, yes, it's accurate to depict the "legacy" Democratic Party as the home of racist policy and ideology, it's downright disingenuous to cast 2016's Democratic party that way. It is that disingenuousness that I have taken exception with in as I've sought to discredit the merit of the OP's thesis and your claims about today's Democratic Party.

Do I take shame in my remarks that "fairly present in all material respects?" Not one bit! The folks who should be ashamed of themselves are they who aim to misrepresent the present by associating it with the past. Times and people change. Racists haven't changed their views, but they have in the main changed their party preference from the Democratic Party to the GOP. And like the Democratic Party of the pre-1990s, neither the GOP nor its current Presidential candidate has told racists to "get out of the GOP and go form their own party for they are not welcome in the GOP."


Sidebar:

In the preface to Lopez's book, one finds the following historically accurate anecdote:

As a contemporary of Obama’s at Harvard Law, let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Obama was no militant minority. Obama did not study with [Derrick] Bell, nor take any course that focused on race and American law. On a campus highly polarized around racial issues, as it was in those years, this may have been an early harbinger of Obama’s tendency to hold himself aloof from racial contentions. Th en there was Obama’s election to the prestigious presidency of the Harvard Law Review . It’s widely known that Obama won as the consensus candidate after conservative and liberal factions fought themselves to exhaustion.

Less well known is that these camps were racially identifi ed, with almost all of the African American review members and their allies on one side. When conservatives threw their support to Obama, they ended a racial as well as political standoff. As others have observed, Obama’s conciliatory above- the fray political style from those years has carried over to his presidency. I would say the same regarding the approach to race Obama seemed to cultivate as a student—that one can heal racial divisions by standing apart from racial conflict, simply letting race play itself out. Th is is far from what Derrick Bell taught.​

End of sidebar.

Very good post, very informative. If you really dig you will see that many in all political organization was in the Klan or somehow courted them. And in those days it was okay I guess. When it became not cool, that's when you saw all this welfare stuff. Going to the strapping black man driving a caddy, and eating a T-bone bought with food stamps is in a way accurate. Food stamps are one of the tools used to keep minorities down. Elect a republican? Well, you will lose your food stamps and section 8. Democrats have never treated black people as anything more then a voting block and they traded in their whips for food stamps.

Look, as I have written elsewhere on USMB, for me, race and politics in a 2010s context, is about establishing trust and goodwill among the parties to any such discussion. The most effective way of doing that is to "fairly present in all material respects" the historic and current truths of the matter.

Am I going to deny the verity at a high level of what you wrote in the last quoted passage above? No, of course not. That would be a disingenuous house of cards to build on my part. What I take exception with about that post it is that for folks who aren't very well informed about the evolution of the two major parties hastily arrive at a conclusion about 2016's manifestation of either major party due to having no or precious little understanding of the full picture behind your remarks.

Now I don't particularly know how well informed you are on the details that give teeth to the observed truths you've cited, I do know that a whole lot of folks here are poorly or simply not well informed about them. Accordingly, they are quite susceptible to arriving at an inaccurate conclusion about both major parties due to their placing undue emphasis on the literality of the observation and ignoring the details that make your summarization so.

And what is it when a writer/speaker presents a very limited rhetorical picture of a matter as "touchy" as race in America and in the Dem and Rep parties? It's inflammatory. Inflammatory rhetoric isn't useful at all in advancing anyone toward a "win-win" means of overcoming the ills, angst and animosity that suffuse the state of race relations in the U.S. In fact, it's rhetoric that is detrimental to achieving any such end.

And that's exactly why we do this.

You mean embrace your Democrat love of the KKK and hatred of minorities. It's a good start. Once you recognize your hatred you will start to see blacks as more then a voting block of lesserthens. Maybe you will even let go of the Klan library you keep lying about having inherited.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, so if we put the actual people aside and what parties they were in and ignore which parties policies were targeted to keeping blacks segregated and impoverished for generations and instead use this nifty neato-keeno 2 dimensional horsehit political spectrum to illustrate everything, then we can see, if we squint our eyes really tight and lean way to the left that, yes, the Republicans are now the party of the KKK.....roflmao what a bunch of ignorant ass propaganda.

My God, you have no shame 320, none whatso ever.

The KKK was DEMOCRAT!

Own it, the historical record doesnt change, bubba.

"The Trees":
The rebuttals I've presented highlight the distinction between the following --

• creating a thing vs. enabling a thing's development,
• encouraging a thing's creation/development vs. acquiescing to a thing's existence/development

-- and call observers to refrain from (1) oversimplifying the matter and/or (2) exaggerating the matter.

As goes the discussion at hand, there are several "things" in play:

• the KKK organization itself,
• the attitudes the KKK's members espoused,
• the activities in which the KKK's members engaged, and
• the party to which the KKK's members belong(ed).

Looking back at how and over what point I involved myself in this thread (post #100), you'll note that I focused on one assertion the OP provides as a premise for the remainder of the post. That assertion is that "the Democrat party invented ... the Klan." That assertion is false. The Democratic Party, quite simply, did not invent the Klan. The content found at the first link I included in post #100 makes that clear.

Now you can accuse me of presenting a revisionist version of history as goes the one point I made; indeed you have done exactly that in this thread. Be that as it may, your accusation holds no water because you have yet to provide any evidence that the Democratic Party of the 1860s invented/created the KKK. You have not because none exists that it did and there is solid evidence that a band of Tennessee college students did create the KKK.

We can play philosophical games with which fallacy or blend thereof be the one(s) in play, but doing so is of little value because no matter which one it is, the undeniable fact is that the Party was not the creator of the KKK. That makes the argument invalid, regardless of the applicable fallacy(s), because it rests on a factually false premise.


"The Forest":
As for the big picture, the OP relies on a "guilt by association" line of ad hominem argumentation. Though often ad hominem lines of argument are fallacious, that one is not insofar as one is describing the Democrats and the Democratic Party extant in the days of Justice Black and Presidents Wilson, Harding and McKinley. That the OP's position is illustrative of one of the exceptions to the "guilt by association" fallacy is why I did not take exception with it.

The problem with the rest of the OP is that it attempts to equate the Democratic Party of Black, Wilson, et al with 2016's Democratic Party. Well, that too I've shown to be a factually inaccurate representation of 2016's Democratic Party. That was the point of the second link in post #100.

I have not denied that the pre-1990s Democratic Party was the party of racists and bigots. Why haven't I? Because the "Dixiecrats" didn't make a singular mass migration to the GOP immediately upon the ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. When did Southern Democrats flock to the GOP? Mostly during the Reagan and Goldwater years. That's something of an oversimplification, but if one is to hone in on key single moments in time, they are the most significant ones in modern times.

• Construction of the Racist Republican
  • Half a century ago, though he was not a racist, Barry Goldwater’s “Southern strategy” certainly contributed to the rift that still exists between the GOP and black voters because it aligned his campaign with segregationists. Even after the South’s racial attitudes were more comfortably integrated with the rest of the United States, sincere clashes in ideologies—and some inept positioning on the part of Ronald Reagan—did not heal that rift.
    
    
  • Harkening back to the ideological foundations of Barry Goldwater, which promoted federalism, and expressing the belief that the country’s culture on race had changed since 1964, Reagan pushed to lessen the federal government’s role in all American life including aspects concerned with civil rights. In fact, from his first inaugural address in which he laid out his philosophical vision, he attempted to shift the national conversation to a more universalist approach to governing with less emphasis on special interests.
    
    He contended “this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” This coincided with a conservative interpretation of fairness, which demands a society in which there is as even a playing field as possible but no expectations about results. As a consequence, Reagan’s policies often ran counter to perceived minority interests.
    
    One problem was Reagan’s style over his substance: a general lack of understanding on the Great Communicator’s part when it came to getting his message across to people of color. After all, George Wallace who had clearly been a segregationist for much of his career—who had quite literally stood in the schoolhouse door to stop black advancement—was able to win over an amazing number of black voters in his twilight years in politics.
• Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
  • It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

• DOG WHISTLE POLITICS HOW CODED RACIAL APPEALS HAVE REINVENTED RACISM AND WRECKED THE MIDDLE CLASS
  • Campaigning for president, Ronald Reagan liked to tell stories of Cadillac-driving “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In flogging these tales about the perils of welfare run amok, Reagan always denied any racism and emphasized he never mentioned race. He didn’t need to because he was blowing a dog whistle.
    
  • Reagan’s presidency also corresponded with the conservative popularization of colorblindness, which urges everyone to avoid race as the surest way to get past racial problems. This racial etiquette is widely embraced, including among liberals, yet colorblindness bolsters dog whistle politics in numerous ways.

So while, yes, it's accurate to depict the "legacy" Democratic Party as the home of racist policy and ideology, it's downright disingenuous to cast 2016's Democratic party that way. It is that disingenuousness that I have taken exception with in as I've sought to discredit the merit of the OP's thesis and your claims about today's Democratic Party.

Do I take shame in my remarks that "fairly present in all material respects?" Not one bit! The folks who should be ashamed of themselves are they who aim to misrepresent the present by associating it with the past. Times and people change. Racists haven't changed their views, but they have in the main changed their party preference from the Democratic Party to the GOP. And like the Democratic Party of the pre-1990s, neither the GOP nor its current Presidential candidate has told racists to "get out of the GOP and go form their own party for they are not welcome in the GOP."


Sidebar:

In the preface to Lopez's book, one finds the following historically accurate anecdote:

As a contemporary of Obama’s at Harvard Law, let me add my voice to the chorus of those saying that Obama was no militant minority. Obama did not study with [Derrick] Bell, nor take any course that focused on race and American law. On a campus highly polarized around racial issues, as it was in those years, this may have been an early harbinger of Obama’s tendency to hold himself aloof from racial contentions. Th en there was Obama’s election to the prestigious presidency of the Harvard Law Review . It’s widely known that Obama won as the consensus candidate after conservative and liberal factions fought themselves to exhaustion.

Less well known is that these camps were racially identifi ed, with almost all of the African American review members and their allies on one side. When conservatives threw their support to Obama, they ended a racial as well as political standoff. As others have observed, Obama’s conciliatory above- the fray political style from those years has carried over to his presidency. I would say the same regarding the approach to race Obama seemed to cultivate as a student—that one can heal racial divisions by standing apart from racial conflict, simply letting race play itself out. Th is is far from what Derrick Bell taught.​

End of sidebar.

Very good post, very informative. If you really dig you will see that many in all political organization was in the Klan or somehow courted them. And in those days it was okay I guess. When it became not cool, that's when you saw all this welfare stuff. Going to the strapping black man driving a caddy, and eating a T-bone bought with food stamps is in a way accurate. Food stamps are one of the tools used to keep minorities down. Elect a republican? Well, you will lose your food stamps and section 8. Democrats have never treated black people as anything more then a voting block and they traded in their whips for food stamps.

Look, as I have written elsewhere on USMB, for me, race and politics in a 2010s context, is about establishing trust and goodwill among the parties to any such discussion. The most effective way of doing that is to "fairly present in all material respects" the historic and current truths of the matter.

Am I going to deny the verity at a high level of what you wrote in the last quoted passage above? No, of course not. That would be a disingenuous house of cards to build on my part. What I take exception with about that post it is that for folks who aren't very well informed about the evolution of the two major parties hastily arrive at a conclusion about 2016's manifestation of either major party due to having no or precious little understanding of the full picture behind your remarks.

Now I don't particularly know how well informed you are on the details that give teeth to the observed truths you've cited, I do know that a whole lot of folks here are poorly or simply not well informed about them. Accordingly, they are quite susceptible to arriving at an inaccurate conclusion about both major parties due to their placing undue emphasis on the literality of the observation and ignoring the details that make your summarization so.

And what is it when a writer/speaker presents a very limited rhetorical picture of a matter as "touchy" as race in America and in the Dem and Rep parties? It's inflammatory. Inflammatory rhetoric isn't useful at all in advancing anyone toward a "win-win" means of overcoming the ills, angst and animosity that suffuse the state of race relations in the U.S. In fact, it's rhetoric that is detrimental to achieving any such end.

And that's exactly why we do this.

You mean embrace your Democrat love of the KKK and hatred of minorities. It's a good start. Once you recognize your hatred you will start to see blacks as more then a voting block of lesserthens. Maybe you will even let go of the Klan library you keep lying about having inherited.

The first resource was called
"The present-day Ku Klux Klan movement; report, Ninetieth Congress, first session. Part 1." published December 11 1967 by:

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
United States House of Representatives

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana, Chairman​

-- which included the complete known history, details of initiations, testimonies from former members, etc etc.
I have it right here.

There was more after that, and I found them fascinating. I've literally got newspaper clippings here going back to the nineteenth century, among other stuff.

there were other resources I've bought and/or looked up online. If you search my history here you'll find I have no doubt at least 50 references.

Bring it on Bub. You haven't even explained how Bill McKinley could be part of an organization that did not then exist, so you're already exposed as a fraud who's pulling it out of his asshole.

Minorities were a target of the Klan --- blacks, Jews, Catholics, union members, immigrants in general (and I myself am in a couple of those categories) -- but not the only targets. They were also against adulterers, 'loose' women, gamblers, drinkers (KKK was strongly pro-Prohibition), communists, gays and people who didn't go to church. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.

 

[Syriusly]

So the Democrat party invented and propagated the Klan, and to this day are still extremely racist to this day. Look at Chicago, Detroit, the 4th ward here in Houston (which is getting better because the folks who live there stopped listening to house negro's like Shell Jackson Lee, a carpet bagger from no new Youk). Anyway, I figure a list of famous Klan members that were and are democrats, so here go's.

1. Justice Hugo L. Black a supreme court justice who never left or disavowed the organization.

2. William McKinley a republican. Dang, one for one!

3. Woodrow Wilson, damn, imagine the scandal if a modern president was found to be Klan member, and wasn't a Republican. And democrats, even Bammer canonized this dreg. What a dummy.

4. Warren G. Harding. Dang.

Looking at the list, there is way to many racist democrats to list. Seriously, do a serch on it.

Now if only the Republicans had stayed the course.

But in 1964, leading conservative and Republican Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then the GOP nominated him for President.

And that was the end of African Americans voting Republican.

And the beginning of Conservative Southerners voting Republican.

 

[g5000]

So the Democrat party invented and propagated the Klan,

I am curious to know why you tards are so obsessed with old time right wing Christian terrorists. Why is it so important to you to remind us of your political roots?

I mean, you aren't actually trying to connect dots which aren't there between those old Christian terrorists and the modern godless liberal Democrats, are you? You aren't actually THAT unbelievably stupid, are you?

As if those old Christian terrorists would be in favor of the modern day Democratic agenda of gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, and ObamaCare.

Right? Right?

Gee, which party is AGAINST gay marriage and amnesty for illegals and ObamaCare, just like those old time Christian terrorists would be? Huh?

Huh?


HUH!?!?


Retard.

Which party hates the federal government as much as those old time Christian terrorists did?

Which party stands up for states rights as much as those old time Christian terrorists did?

Which party loves their gun rights as much as those old time Christian terrorists did?

 

[g5000]

1948. The right wing Democrats split from the Democratic Party, and form their own party led by Strom Thurmond, who later became a Republican.

Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party

We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

 

[g5000]

1940. FDR's conservative Vice President, John Nance Garner, runs against FDR for the Democratic nomination. Garner is fed up with the New Deal's liberal policies.

He loses and goes back home to Texas.

FDR replaces Garner with Henry Wallace as his Vice President.

Henry Wallace had been a Republican until the mid-1930s. He is a far left liberal.

Wallace is so liberal, he splits off all the far lefties in the Democratic party during the 1948 campaign and forms the Progressive Party.

The Progressive Party is hijacked by the communist elements.


So...in 1948, the Democratic Party implodes. It shatters into THREE parties.

You'd think that would make it the easiest election in the world for the Republicans to win.

The Republicans were getting kind of mad at the Democrats for picking up the civil rights banner. The GOP saw that as their banner, which is why they picked the more liberal Dewey as their candidate to run against the moderate Truman, instead of picking the conservative Robert Taft (son of President William Howard Taft).

It's a long story why Truman defeats Dewey (see what I did there? ), but this began an acceleration of the Democratic Party movement more and more left, and the GOP's movement more and more right.

 

[g5000]

Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party

We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

You know who got the Democratic Party to adopt a civil rights program in their platform in 1948?

I bet the pseudocon tards have no idea.

 

[Pogo]

1940. FDR's conservative Vice President, John Nance Garner, runs against FDR for the Democratic nomination. Garner is fed up with the New Deal's liberal policies.

He loses and goes back home to Texas.

FDR replaces Garner with Henry Wallace as his Vice President.

Henry Wallace had been a Republican until the mid-1930s. He is a far left liberal.

Wallace is so liberal, he splits off all the far lefties in the Democratic party during the 1948 campaign and forms the Progressive Party.

The Progressive Party is hijacked by the communist elements.


So...in 1948, the Democratic Party implodes. It shatters into THREE parties.

You'd think that would make it the easiest election in the world for the Republicans to win.

The Republicans were getting kind of mad at the Democrats for picking up the civil rights banner. The GOP saw that as their banner, which is why they picked the more liberal Dewey as their candidate to run against the moderate Truman, instead of picking the conservative Robert Taft (son of President William Howard Taft).

It's a long story why Truman defeats Dewey (see what I did there? ), but this began an acceleration of the Democratic Party movement more and more left, and the GOP's movement more and more right.

I used to run a (Henry) Wallace quote in my sigline -- .

"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
​

---- which is eerily appropriate now as well.

I would say the Democratic Party started moving leftward when it absorbed the Populists at the turn of the century while the Republicans were moving to the right and the interests of Corporatia and the wealthy, culminating in its rejection of (Teddy) Roosevelt, the guy who had swept the primaries, in favor of Taft in 1912. When FDR put the New Deal into operation, incorporating much of the agenda of the Progressivists (the real ones including TR, not the loose term flung around here as if it were a contemporary thing), those positions solidified (and this is where the black vote migrated to the Democrats as well).

Of course the 1948 split was cited above, although the Southern vs non-Southern DP had split before in the same way as far back as 1860. The oil-and-water mix had to give sooner or later.

 

[rdean]

Educating Republicans: Why You Can't Spell KKK Without the Letters G-O-P

 

[jon_berzerk]

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

now you are flat out lying

--- because a Klown kavorting around in a Klan Kostume would never tell a fib for the purpose of trolling politics, right? Those are what you call trustworthy people.


--- Or do you have some kind of inside info?

it can clearly be seen your

suspension of disbelief

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

and his group gave her a bunch of cash

 

[g5000]

Like who? Because all the one's I've seen, like David Dukes, call themselves Republican.

https://psmag.com/how-the-kkk-helped-create-the-solid-gop-south-9dd3ad90a3e#.f23dit56e
How the KKK Helped Create the Solid GOP South

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

Yes it is.

The Klown claimed he and his pals had anonymously donated $20,000 to Clinton.

First, I doubt the chucklehead and his friends could scratch together $200, much less twenty thousand. If he even has any friends.

Second, why would you donate ANONYMOUSLY and then openly brag about it?

Does not pass the sniff test. It's bogus.

It's hilarious the poser Klown is trying to poison Clinton with his own toxicity.

 

[g5000]

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

now you are flat out lying

--- because a Klown kavorting around in a Klan Kostume would never tell a fib for the purpose of trolling politics, right? Those are what you call trustworthy people.


--- Or do you have some kind of inside info?

it can clearly be seen your

suspension of disbelief

That doesn't mean what you think it does. It is YOU who has suspended your disbelief, retard.

 

[jon_berzerk]

why are you so one sided asshole

everyone knows that grand wizard will quigg endorsed hillary clinton

and his group donated 20 grand to her campaign


so either your blind or your a liar

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

Yes it is.

The Klown claimed he and his pals had anonymously donated $20,000 to Clinton.

First, I doubt the chucklehead and his friends could scratch together $200, much less twenty thousand. If he even has any friends.

Second, why would you donate ANONYMOUSLY and then openly brag about it?

Does not pass the sniff test. It's bogus.

It's hilarious the poser Klown is trying to poison Clinton with his own toxicity.

The Klown claimed he and his pals had anonymously donated $20,000 to Clinton

so what

doesnt mean he did not endorse Hillary

First, I doubt the chucklehead and his friends could scratch together $200, much less twenty thousand. If he even has any friends.

that is your opinion

he says they did

Second, why would you donate ANONYMOUSLY and then openly brag about it?

who knows doesnt make it false

 

[g5000]

Will Quigg, whoever he may be, is no "Grand Wizard" except in his pointed little head. That's because the Klan as a siingle organization ---- does not exist, and hasn't existed since 1944. April 23rd to be exact.

Will Quigg, David Duke, and anybody else who calls himself "Klan" or dresses up as such, is simply playing dress-up with the fantasies in his own head. So you cannot ascribe significance to his attention-whoring (which apparently worked on you, wanna buy a bridge?) without employing a Composition Fallacy. Can't be done.

Besides which -- I doubt any moron dressing up in sheets even HAS twenty thousand to pass around. If he did he wouldn't be dressing in sheets.

An "endorsement" by some clown playing dress-up is nothing new. Barry Goldwater got one. Ronald Reagan got one. Donald Rump got one too. The difference, of course, is that Goldwater and Reagan didn't say "I don't know what you're even talking about, I know nothing about white supremacists or the Klan or what you're even talking about".

In other words they didn't try to pander those votes into their own pockets like the old bipolar Democrats used to --- they grew a pair and rejected them outright. As did Rump 16 years prior before he changed his mind.

fact is the racist endorsed hillary

his racist organization gave her 20 grand

You lie.

that is not a lie idiot

Yes it is.

The Klown claimed he and his pals had anonymously donated $20,000 to Clinton.

First, I doubt the chucklehead and his friends could scratch together $200, much less twenty thousand. If he even has any friends.

Second, why would you donate ANONYMOUSLY and then openly brag about it?

Does not pass the sniff test. It's bogus.

It's hilarious the poser Klown is trying to poison Clinton with his own toxicity.

The Klown claimed he and his pals had anonymously donated $20,000 to Clinton

so what

doesnt mean he did not endorse Hillary

First, I doubt the chucklehead and his friends could scratch together $200, much less twenty thousand. If he even has any friends.

that is your opinion

he says they did

Second, why would you donate ANONYMOUSLY and then openly brag about it?

who knows doesnt make it false

The Klown made a claim he cannot support with evidence. This is a good sign he is lying out his ass.

He's a Klown, after all.

 

[jon_berzerk]

that is not a lie idiot

That endorsement was a spoof. A hoax.

now you are flat out lying

--- because a Klown kavorting around in a Klan Kostume would never tell a fib for the purpose of trolling politics, right? Those are what you call trustworthy people.


--- Or do you have some kind of inside info?

it can clearly be seen your

suspension of disbelief

That doesn't mean what you think it does. It is YOU who has suspended your disbelief, retard.

indeed

it does dummy

or

are you saying pogo

does not have any critical faculties to suspend