Scalise: "I'm a David Duke Republican"

[Mac1958]

.

There is significant overlap in terms of the behavior of hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends.

Their behaviors are very similar.

Amusingly, pointing that out REALLY pisses them off, because they HATE being equated with those they so loathe.



.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, look around. This board is crawling with people who have labeled Scalise all kinds of things based on trumped up, pathetically flimsy charges.

How much overlap do you think there is with the group that is labeling Bill Clinton with pedophilia on no evidence?

I havent followed it or reviewed evidence.
DOes it sound like Bill Clinton to have had sex with an underage girl? Does he have a history of sexual misbehavior or a pattern of inappropriate conduct? The answer of course is Yes. That makes the allegations more likely but still unfounded in and of themselves.

Bill has a past. It's really easy to see this isn't his first go-round with sexual proclivity. So, it becomes pretty easy to embellish a bit on him being within those court docs. But it ain't to mean anything. He's not guilty until he's proven so. And it shouldn't hurt Hilary's chances at running either.

With Scalise, we have no history, a 12 year old local senator talking tax policy to a group of constituents (who may have been white supremacists), and a claim by a reporter that 20 years ago Scalise told her something. No documentation, no nothing.


Both cases aren't worth their time. But we've gone full Idiocracy in this country.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, look around. This board is crawling with people who have labeled Scalise all kinds of things based on trumped up, pathetically flimsy charges.

How much overlap do you think there is with the group that is labeling Bill Clinton with pedophilia on no evidence?

Full overlap.

So the people who are saying Scalise is a Nazi racist are the same people saying Clinton was humping kids on an island in the Caribbean?

This is a profound revelation.

They are not the same people. They are the two party politic gamers. They come in either D or R respectively and they say different things that sound the same and blame each other for everything.

Their ranks are growing, unfortunately.

 

[g5000]

Well, look around. This board is crawling with people who have labeled Scalise all kinds of things based on trumped up, pathetically flimsy charges.

How much overlap do you think there is with the group that is labeling Bill Clinton with pedophilia on no evidence?

I havent followed it or reviewed evidence.
DOes it sound like Bill Clinton to have had sex with an underage girl? Does he have a history of sexual misbehavior or a pattern of inappropriate conduct? The answer of course is Yes. That makes the allegations more likely but still unfounded in and of themselves.

Scalise said he was a David Duke Republican. He gave a speech at a white supremacist conference.

The circumstantial evidence is stronger against Scalise than Clinton.

For Clinton, his Secret Service staff would have to have been in on it. Epstein would have to be stupid enough to throw a child orgy for Clinton and the Secret Service. Yeah, right. That's conspiracy whackjob territory.

 

[g5000]

Well, look around. This board is crawling with people who have labeled Scalise all kinds of things based on trumped up, pathetically flimsy charges.

How much overlap do you think there is with the group that is labeling Bill Clinton with pedophilia on no evidence?

Full overlap.

So the people who are saying Scalise is a Nazi racist are the same people saying Clinton was humping kids on an island in the Caribbean?

This is a profound revelation.

They are not the same people. They are the two party politic gamers. They come in either D or R respectively and they say different things that sound the same and blame each other for everything.

Their ranks are growing, unfortunately.

But there is little overlap between the people who put Clinton in a pedophilia orgy and those people who put Scalise in a white hood.

I absolutely agree we are plagued with partisan hacks who allow their logic filters to be clogged by a desire to believe whatever manufactured bullshit is flavored to agree with their particular political stomachs.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no circumstantial evidence against Clinton. He's named in association with that one dude.

Scalise, as far as we know, didn't say that. A reporter claims he said it - 20 years ago. The Supremacist speech is just laughable. I mean, if he spoke about that groups agenda or something we may have something to go with, but tax policy?



It's so stupid I can't even believe I havent walked away already shaking my head.

 

[g5000]

There is no circumstantial evidence against Clinton. He's named in association with that one dude.

Scalise, as far as we know, didn't say that. A reporter claims he said it - 20 years ago. The Supremacist speech is just laughable. I mean, if he spoke about that groups agenda or something we may have something to go with, but tax policy?



It's so stupid I can't even believe I havent walked away already shaking my head.

I provided a link to another story that backs up the "David Duke Republican" recollection, and quoted from that link. It is a 1999 article, and not a recollection, and Scalise said virtually the same thing at that time. He said he had many of the same beliefs as Duke.

So there is more than one source which connects Scalise to Duke's beliefs in his own words.

And then there is his attendance at a white supremacist conference.

Not a full picture, but definitely three dots that are starting to draw a picture.

 

[Synthaholic]

Madcow.... Inquiring adolescent retards want to know

Please, tell us all the stories she got wrong.

I asked that earlier, but the wingnuts shut right up.

I asked for proof but the sycophants shut right up.

You've been given the proof.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, do you have something besides heresay from liberal hacks? I mean, something like a video or an audio, or an admission from Scalise? Yeah, I didn't think so.

What we don't have is a denial from Scalise.

Why is that?

 

[Synthaholic]

Hope & Change is reduced to this. What a difference years makes.

Yeah, we don't need as much hope any more, since Obama has already restored America from the depths that Bush sunk us to.

Are you better off now than you were when Obama took office in 2009?

Of course you are.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obviously Scalise is not a Nazi or a racist or a member of the Klan, nor does the GOP as a whole endorse racism.

But this is yet another example of how republicans can't have it both ways: they can't on the one hand claim that they're advocates of diversity and inclusion on the National level while on the other attempt to take political advantage of the racism that exists on the local.

Republicans must find the courage to denounce the racism that finds refuge among their ranks, even if that costs them votes.

Have you checked out the incoming GOP Congress, including the first black Republican from SC? Please show me any Republican supporting racism. It doesnt exist. Legitimate racism exists only among Democrats.

Translation: We've got a token!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no circumstantial evidence against Clinton. He's named in association with that one dude.

Scalise, as far as we know, didn't say that. A reporter claims he said it - 20 years ago. The Supremacist speech is just laughable. I mean, if he spoke about that groups agenda or something we may have something to go with, but tax policy?



It's so stupid I can't even believe I havent walked away already shaking my head.

I provided a link to another story that backs up the "David Duke Republican" recollection, and quoted from that link. It is a 1999 article, and not a recollection, and Scalise said virtually the same thing at that time. He said he had many of the same beliefs as Duke.

So there is more than one source which connects Scalise to Duke's beliefs in his own words.

And then there is his attendance at a white supremacist conference.

Not a full picture, but definitely three dots that are starting to draw a picture.

You mean the Roll Call column where Roll Call interviewed him in 1999 but can not muster an actual cite source?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, do you have something besides heresay from liberal hacks? I mean, something like a video or an audio, or an admission from Scalise? Yeah, I didn't think so.

What we don't have is a denial from Scalise.

Why is that?

Because it's not his job to prove a negative for you morons. I'd be laughing t you if I were him.

 

[Antares]

....and Bill Clinton is a sexual predator with ties, CLOSE ties to a pedophile.

 

[Synthaholic]

LOL, using Stormfront as a reference when it suits you.

ROTFLMBAO @ denouncing Storm Front when it suits you.

I would denounce Stormfront at the drop of a hat. That page is for ACTUAL racists, not the "racists" you see lurking in every post.

That you would even consider using them as any form of reliable reference shows your complete lack of moral fiber.

Scalise spoke at a David Duke event, EURO, where David Duke was one of the speakers, along with other speakers.

Are you telling me that Scalise didn't know he was speaking to a Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, Klan gathering? He didn't hear any other the other speakers? He was in a hermetically sealed bag or something?

Plus he's been caught in another lie: he says that he was there to talk about a specific tax plan, that he named. Turns out that tax plan wasn't in existence yet.

Just a little research, folks, turns up all kinds of dirt.

 

[Synthaholic]

I see Assoholic has abandoned this thread because there is no proof Scalise ever described himself as a David Duke Republican.
Shouldn't willful lying on this forum be bannable?

Here's a clue, wingnut: spending the day working at a job is not the same as 'abandoning' this thread.

I'm not an unemployable bum like you, typing with one hand on the internet all day long.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see Assoholic has abandoned this thread because there is no proof Scalise ever described himself as a David Duke Republican.
Shouldn't willful lying on this forum be bannable?

Here's a clue, wingnut: spending the day working at a job is not the same as 'abandoning' this thread.

I'm not an unemployable bum like you, typing with one hand on the internet all day long.

Where's the proof, asshole? Surely youve' been able to find some record of Scalise saying he's a David Duke Republican by now, right? Otherwise you're just a lying sack of shit.

 

[Synthaholic]

So I've been doing some digging. I am not sure that Maddow has video footage of Scalise saying he was David Duke without the baggage. It sounds to me like this latest cycle is about an article by someone who interviewed Scalise years ago, and that reporter's current recollections are that he told her was David Duke without the baggage.

Here is what I believe is the source material: Stephanie Grace Scalise's pitch to Duke supporters seems plausible

This is what I remember about the first time I met Steve Scalise nearly 20 years ago: He told me he was like David Duke without the baggage.


I was a new reporter covering Jefferson Parish, and Scalise, now the majority whip in the U.S. House of Representatives, was just starting out in the Louisiana Legislature (I’m going from memory, but the exchange obviously stuck with me).

Not unequivocal, but the noose is certainly tightening around Scalise's neck.

Another potential candidate, state Rep. Steve Scalise (R), said he embraces many of the same “conservative” views as Duke, but is far more viable.

“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” said Scalise. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”

​

 

[Synthaholic]

But wait, there's more!

This is from a 1999 interview of Scalise:

Another potential candidate, state Rep. Steve Scalise (R), said he embraces many of the same “conservative” views as Duke, but is far more viable.

“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” said Scalise. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”

That is not a recollection. That is what was said by Scalise in 1999.

Oopsie!

Ok, I read the link. Where does Scalise say he is a David Duke Republican or he is David Duke without the baggage? He doesn't. Saying he embraces some of the same "conservative" views as Duke does NOT mean he embraces any of his racial views or attitudes. Your challenge is to provide some documentation of Scalise making ANY kind of racially insensitive or racist statements. You clearly cannot meet that challenge. All you have is smears.

Liar. He said 'many'.

 

[Mac1958]

Holy shit - Rachel Maddow has uncovered interviews from the late 1990s and early 2000s, where Scalise declares that he's a "David Duke Republican" and that he's "David Duke, without the baggage".

I will post the video tomorrow, but you will all be familiar with it by then.

I don't want to wade through all these pages, where did you post the video?

.