So much for Republicans being at the forefront of civil rights in the 60

[ThunderKiss1965]

Ha ha so what your saying is democrats never lynched anyone or founded the KKK.

What I'm saying is that no fucking political party was ever required for a lynching, therefore you don't know the political makeup of, let's say, the lynching Bob Dylan referred to in "Desolation Row". Or indeed, any other.

And no, the Klan was founded by six ex-Confederte vet soldiers. There's no evidence any of them had any political affiliations or activities.

See, these kinds of things require what we call "evidence".

Gee Pogo you better hustle your ass over to the History Channel and bitch slap them into the next galaxy for lying.



Following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan emerges to suppress and victimize newly freed slaves.

• Contents
  • Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Ku Klux Klan Violence in the South
  • The Ku Klux Klan and the End of Reconstruction
  • Revival of the Ku Klux Klan

• Article Details:
• Ku Klux Klan
  • Author
    History.com Staff
  • Website Name
    History.com
  • Year Published
    2009
  • Title
    Ku Klux Klan
  • URL
    Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
  • Access Date
    January 16, 2017
  • Publisher
    A+E Networks

Introduction
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.

Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more at link.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ha ha so what your saying is democrats never lynched anyone or founded the KKK.

What I'm saying is that no fucking political party was ever required for a lynching, therefore you don't know the political makeup of, let's say, the lynching Bob Dylan referred to in "Desolation Row". Or indeed, any other.

And no, the Klan was founded by six ex-Confederte vet soldiers. There's no evidence any of them had any political affiliations or activities.

See, these kinds of things require what we call "evidence".

Gee Pogo you better hustle your ass over to the History Channel and bitch slap them into the next galaxy for lying.



Following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan emerges to suppress and victimize newly freed slaves.

• Contents
  • Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Ku Klux Klan Violence in the South
  • The Ku Klux Klan and the End of Reconstruction
  • Revival of the Ku Klux Klan

• Article Details:
• Ku Klux Klan
  • Author
    History.com Staff
  • Website Name
    History.com
  • Year Published
    2009
  • Title
    Ku Klux Klan
  • URL
    Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
  • Access Date
    January 16, 2017
  • Publisher
    A+E Networks

Introduction
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.

Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more at link.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Southern Democrats are still conservatives today.
I've been living in the South for 30 years.
I would know.

 

[tinydancer]

Trump is learning that is unfettered mouth is getting him into scrapes that rub off time and his good image when he could be doing better things.

He needs to stand above the fray now, not get down in it.

His commitment to Single Payer and to competitive pharma bidding for Medicaid and Medicare are good starts.

He gets more popular by the day.

what's is polling #'s now?? 37%??

Hillary's winning again?

 

[Bush92]

Trump is learning that is unfettered mouth is getting him into scrapes that rub off time and his good image when he could be doing better things.

He needs to stand above the fray now, not get down in it.

His commitment to Single Payer and to competitive pharma bidding for Medicaid and Medicare are good starts.

He gets more popular by the day.

what's is polling #'s now?? 37%??

About 306 electoral votes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Parties have histories of racism. But the Republican Party was doing Civil Rights when Democrats were still lynching African Americans. So one could legitimately claim that the Democratic Party is a 'Johnny-Come-Lately' on Civil Rights, when compared to the Republican Party.

One could claim that, rightly or wrongly, but effective CR became law under LBJ and the Dems with good GOP help from the north and the west.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is learning that is unfettered mouth is getting him into scrapes that rub off time and his good image when he could be doing better things.

He needs to stand above the fray now, not get down in it.

His commitment to Single Payer and to competitive pharma bidding for Medicaid and Medicare are good starts.

He gets more popular by the day.

what's is polling #'s now?? 37%??

About 306 electoral votes.

That would not be there now. His popularity is under 40%, the GOP is reneging on almost everything it promised the voters. It looks like the Dems won, because he is promising SP, etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is learning that is unfettered mouth is getting him into scrapes that rub off time and his good image when he could be doing better things.

He needs to stand above the fray now, not get down in it.

His commitment to Single Payer and to competitive pharma bidding for Medicaid and Medicare are good starts.

He gets more popular by the day.

Prove it. He got about 47% of the vote, and his popularity is at about 40% now. It will go lower if does not straighten up and represent all the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a questionable statement, indeed: "the past Republicans have typically ignored the childish whining and bitching from the snot rags in the Democratic Party".

Trump is getting what Trump gave.

That is not going to change.

 

[hadit]

Trump was a mere citizen when he said that, not an elected official. Bit of a difference.

Oh really. So that was a different guy huh?
Kinda like Grover Cleveland the 22nd President was a whole different guy from Grover Cleveland the 24th President?

Same person, different scope. A person not affiliated with a company can say all kinds of things about the company's executive staff, with no impact. If that person becomes an officer of that company, however, his comments take on a lot more impact. You do see that, right?

So you're saying Donald John Trump, and Donald John Trump ---- are NOT the same guy huh?

If that's what you take away from it, there is no point in trying to clarify it for you. You're deliberately being obtuse.

So as they say in the tire buisness, let's recap --

On the one hand you can't admit that Rump and Rump are the same person; on the other hand you can't explain the difference.

Thanks for uh, clearing that up.

Now that the fantasy is out of the way, here's the real recap:

There is a difference between a citizen voicing an opinion about a president and a Senator voicing an opinion about a president.

If you're so hardheaded that you can't acknowledge that, then it's a waste of time teaching you anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, hadit. Lewis is a congressman not a senator, and he had every right, morally and ethically and legally, to call out the pres-elect.

 

[Pogo]

This is the Congressman that lied about getting spit on. Former heros can still be assholes. Look at McCain.

And you know he wasn't spat on because you were watching from Canada. Alllllllt righty then.

 

[easyt65]

Lewis just lied his ass off, declaring that this inauguration will be the 1st one he has missed:

Rep. John Lewis says this will be the first inaugural he’s skipped, but forgets 2001


"After skipping Bush’s inauguration in ’01, there’s a pattern of John Lewis’s attempts to de-legitimize Presidents! pic.twitter.com/tmEk1kaLpU
— VP Elect (@MikePenceVP) January 16, 2017

Not only did the Washington Post report that he skipped Bush’s inaugural, but he questioned his legitimacy as well:

John Lewis, for instance, spent [inauguration] day in his Atlanta district. He thought it would be hypocritical to attend Bush’s swearing-in because he doesn’t believe Bush is the true elected president."

Sedition seems to be a pattern for Lewis.

 

[Pogo]

What I'm saying is that no fucking political party was ever required for a lynching, therefore you don't know the political makeup of, let's say, the lynching Bob Dylan referred to in "Desolation Row". Or indeed, any other.

And no, the Klan was founded by six ex-Confederte vet soldiers. There's no evidence any of them had any political affiliations or activities.

See, these kinds of things require what we call "evidence".

Gee Pogo you better hustle your ass over to the History Channel and bitch slap them into the next galaxy for lying.



Following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan emerges to suppress and victimize newly freed slaves.

• Contents
  • Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Ku Klux Klan Violence in the South
  • The Ku Klux Klan and the End of Reconstruction
  • Revival of the Ku Klux Klan

• Article Details:
• Ku Klux Klan
  • Author
    History.com Staff
  • Website Name
    History.com
  • Year Published
    2009
  • Title
    Ku Klux Klan
  • URL
    Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
  • Access Date
    January 16, 2017
  • Publisher
    A+E Networks

Introduction
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.

Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more at link.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the Congressman that lied about getting spit on. Former heros can still be assholes. Look at McCain.

And you know he wasn't spat on because you were watching from Canada. Alllllllt righty then.

Yeah....and he never missed an inauguration before this one too.

 

[Pogo]

This is the Congressman that lied about getting spit on. Former heros can still be assholes. Look at McCain.

And you know he wasn't spat on because you were watching from Canada. Alllllllt righty then.

Yeah....and he never missed an inauguration before this one too.

I believe he did. I believe it was you who brought that info in too.

Doesn't affect how Tinydancer can declare a negative on an event she wasn't there for now does it?

 

[2aguy]

Gee Pogo you better hustle your ass over to the History Channel and bitch slap them into the next galaxy for lying.



Following the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan emerges to suppress and victimize newly freed slaves.

• Contents
  • Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Ku Klux Klan Violence in the South
  • The Ku Klux Klan and the End of Reconstruction
  • Revival of the Ku Klux Klan

• Article Details:
• Ku Klux Klan
  • Author
    History.com Staff
  • Website Name
    History.com
  • Year Published
    2009
  • Title
    Ku Klux Klan
  • URL
    Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
  • Access Date
    January 16, 2017
  • Publisher
    A+E Networks

Introduction
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.

Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more at link.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

 

[2aguy]

Both Parties have histories of racism. But the Republican Party was doing Civil Rights when Democrats were still lynching African Americans. So one could legitimately claim that the Democratic Party is a 'Johnny-Come-Lately' on Civil Rights, when compared to the Republican Party.

One could claim that, rightly or wrongly, but effective CR became law under LBJ and the Dems with good GOP help from the north and the west.

lbj voted against every single civil rights law for the first 20 years he was in office...including the anti lynching laws....he saw the light when he realized blacks were eventually going to get to vote...and that if the democrats ever wanted to have power again....they needed black votes....

 

[g5000]

Both Parties have histories of racism. But the Republican Party was doing Civil Rights when Democrats were still lynching African Americans. So one could legitimately claim that the Democratic Party is a 'Johnny-Come-Lately' on Civil Rights, when compared to the Republican Party.

One could claim that, rightly or wrongly, but effective CR became law under LBJ and the Dems with good GOP help from the north and the west.

lbj voted against every single civil rights law for the first 20 years he was in office...including the anti lynching laws....he saw the light when he realized blacks were eventually going to get to vote...and that if the democrats ever wanted to have power again....they needed black votes....

Trump is a lot like LBJ. I've said that many times. Except instead of a right winger pretending to be a left winger, Trump is a left winger pretending to be a right winger.

Trump spent his life as a far left liberal. He was a Democrat during the entire Bush Administration. He was "very pro-choice". He wanted Bush impeached. He wanted us to cut and run from Iraq. He thought Bill Clinton was a great President, and that Hillary would make a great President. He was in favor of an assault weapons ban.

He was a textbook New York limousine liberal, and a world class huckster.

Then Trump, who has always wanted to be President (he was the Reform Party candidate in 2000), saw the political handwriting on the wall. And, as a world class huckster, he knew it would be easy to con the pseudocon rubes who digest manufactured bullshit as part of their daily diet.

Hey, where do I register as a Republican?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad that 2aguy realizes that LBJ saw the light in doing the right thing, getting blacks the votes, just as did the liberal GOP after the Civil War because the GOP needed black votes. The difference is that the Dems have kept the black votes.

 

[Pogo]

Are you trying to tell us Robert E. Lee was a liberal?

You must be one of those idiots that thinks all Democrats are liberals.

So you admit that the Southern Democrats were CONSERVATIVES for all those years they were slavers, and then KKK'ers and segregationists.

Excellent. Now get your RW numnut pals around here to admit the same thing.

Umm no Democrats have always been a group that took a liberal view towards the Constitution and freedoms of US citizens. That's how you idiots have been able to enslave people then and now.

A truly Liberal view would not have permitted slavery to exist. But it was already here -- slavery, and specifically African transatlantic slavery, was here for three hundred years before there was such a thing as "Democrats".

But the political party that kept slavery...that fought to restart the slave trade with Africa, that fought to have slavery in new states, that seceeded from the union because a Republican President, the party that opposed slavery, won the election...was the democrat party...who after losing the war and having their slaves freed, the democrat party enacted jim crow laws, and and fought to keep blacks from becoming full citizens......including supporting the attacks of the kkk....

Didn't I just school you on Martin van Buren? Or was that somebody else? Y'all ignorami all look alike to me.

No political party "supported slavery" as a whole. The Republican Party was founded specifically and primarily to end it, but that doesn't mean its alternative in the Duopoly of 2016 therefore must have been on the other side 150-200 years ago. Some Democrats supported it, some (as van Buren above) didn't. Just as some Whigs supported slavery, some didn't Here's the difference --- when the RP rose up to champion the cause of Abolition they had a principle to stand behind, and stood behind it. Democrats were doing what they always do, being wishy-washy, trying to be all things to all interest groups in a quest to amass power, which is after all what any political party's purpose is. With an 1860 Republican you knew where he stood; with an 1860 Democrat he'd tell you whatever you wanted to hear.

But wishy-washy has a cost, that being you get to a point where neither the wishy nor the washy gets what they want. So when the DP tried to placate the South, sometimes it worked as an uneasy truce between liberals and conservatives, while other times it didn't, and the South picked up and walked out. They did that in 1948 and they did it in 1860. When the South didn't hear what they wanted to hear from the DP in 1860 they disrupted the convention and forced it to be shut down; the whole affair had to be moved out of the South altogether. They then proceeded to run their own candidate, as they would again in 1948. But by '48 they had lost their veto power in the convention and were off their home turf.

You binary-bots who think the entire world is made up of only "Democrat" and "Republican" atoms and always has been, need to pick up what we call a 'history book' at some point. The first century of this country saw many political parties, major ones that held high offices. Most of them took no particular position on Slavery pro or con.

As for van Buren, who's credited with organizing the Jackson faction into the modern Democratic Party, he personally thought slavery was immoral but also saw it as protected by the Constitution (i.e. the same argument attributed to Barry Goldwater's vote against the 1964 CRA). He, like other POTUSes of the entire first half of the 19th century, tried to strike a balance between the head-butting tensions of Slave vs Free economies. That approach, it's easy to see from our latter-day perspective, was destined to fail. Arguably the Founders themselves erred in setting up those opposing dynamics and empowering the Slave faction in the first place, presumably expecting the situation would just "fix itself". It would not.

And btw another one of those political parties founded specifically to oppose Slavery was the Free Soil Party. Van Buren was its Presidential candidate in 1848.

Slavery had to go. It was already going in Europe and Latin America. It was just a matter of time before the hyperconservative South either saw the writing on the wall, or was forced to acknowledge it. Well, between those two options, I'm not sure if you can fully grok how challenging it is to get a hyperconservative to consider the fact that maybe where he's standing might be the wrong place.

So no, the "Democrat Party" (which does not actually exist) didn't secede --- the South had already seceded FROM the DemocratIC Party. Really the first stroke of that secession wasn't South Carolina declaring itself seceded, but rather the various Southern States running John Breckinridge for President against Lincoln, Bell and Douglas, in effect declaring itself independent from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Political parties don't go to war. Democrats already existed in the North as well as South, and many supported Lincoln and/or the Union staying together. Douglas was one of them and he was the Party's nominee.