Trump as healer: lie of 2016

[Pogo]

Seems to me some tried that a while back. What was it called --- Ku Klux something or other....

Yeah, Democrats tried that a while back. I thought you already knew that.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

No no, I'm talking about vigilantes, not politicians.

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." << --- Elaine Franz Parsons, Ku-Klux The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction
​

The two posters were advocating vigilantism. That's exactly what the Klan did.

Get it now? Or does this post somehow convey the idea of "George H. W. Bush killing Kennedy"?

Nice try at rewriting history but the Klan was the sole creation of Democrats who wanted Republicans out of office and my link proves it. And George H.W. Bush didn't kill Kennedy, despite what you tried to imply in this post. You must be a glutton for punishment for continuing to bring it up, idiot.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Actually not only does your own link contradict that but -------- we just did this recently, I spanked you with your own link (this same one) and here you come running the same game again expecting different results

Roll tape.

>> A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. <<​

1865 actually, but there was only a week left in the year. And it wasn't really "many", it was six, and I have all their names, and I've gone over this over and over. Soldiers, not politicians; nobody had any known political affiliation; and the South was disenfranchised anyway so what would have been the point? "Wanted Republicans out of office"? In 1865 there weren't any Republicans in office in the South.

I see we're walking the whole GW Bush thing back to "imply" now. Good, good. Let the shame flow through you. Learning to read is so fun. You'll be glad you did, trust me.

I see you're still in denial. You gonna try to say Jim Crow laws weren't all passed by Democrats too? Go ahead, I could use a good laugh from my favorite USMB clown. Then you can explain Bush's involvement in the JFK assassination.

I don't know of any. That's your myth, not mine.

Learn to read.

 

[S.J.]

Pogo consistently avoids addressing the inconvenient fact that the Klan was created for the purpose of intimidating and terrorizing Republicans. What logic would dictate that the KKK founders were conservatives or independents? That leaves one party, the party that supported slavery, founded the KKK and implemented Jim Crow laws. One party...DEMOCRAT.

 

[Pogo]

He doesn't know shit. I live in Memphis, the KKK Was originally formed to fight off the Yankees and was founded by Nathan Bedford Forest, it became a hate group and he bounced.

Nope, Forrest wasn't even there. It was founded by Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed and Frank O. McCord, six Confederate War vets, in a law office in Pulaski, Christmas Eve 1865. Once various regional groups started using the motif they got together in Nashville and elected Forrest to be the figurehead --- and he wasn't at that meeting either. Eventually he took the position, this would be Spring of 1867, and by January 1869, you are correct about this part, he issued his one and only general order disbanding the organization and ordering the various robes and hoods to be destroyed.

The actual membership of course ignored that order and ran amok until they were suppressed by Grant's federal government a few years later.

That was it until William "Colonel Joe" Simmons rekindled the Klan in 1915 on Stone Mountain, which would with the aid of a PR firm grow to be many many times bigger and more influential than the original although it didn't last long either.

But neither Simmons, nor Crowe, Kennedy, Lester, Jones, McCord or Reed had any known political affiliation. That wasn't really the point.

Go ahead --- find proof to the contrary.

You musta just fell off the turnip truck if you think this is my first round on this particular story, son.

Nathan Bedford Forrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forrest was an early member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Historian and Forrest biographer Brian Steel Wills writes, "While there is no doubt that Forrest joined the Klan, there is some question as to whether he actually was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1869, Forrest distanced himself from the Klan, when it got ugly, hoping to dissolve this incarnation of the KKK as a way of placating Republicans he needed for his new railroad ventures.[59]

I know this because we had a park named for him in Memphis, they changed it. Not my first rodeo either.

Correct, but you're walking back your previous post where you said he founded it. He didn't.

You're welcome.

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo consistently avoids addressing the inconvenient fact that the Klan was created for the purpose of intimidating and terrorizing Republicans. What logic would dictate that the KKK founders were conservatives or independents? That leaves one party, the party that supported slavery, founded the KKK and implemented Jim Crow laws. One party...DEMOCRAT.

Then show us the proof.

Been waiting for.... how long have I been here? Three years? Four?

What you binary illiterates can't get through your head is ------ not everything in the world is based on some fucking political party. Because not everything is political.

 

[S.J.]

Pogo consistently avoids addressing the inconvenient fact that the Klan was created for the purpose of intimidating and terrorizing Republicans. What logic would dictate that the KKK founders were conservatives or independents? That leaves one party, the party that supported slavery, founded the KKK and implemented Jim Crow laws. One party...DEMOCRAT.

Then show us the proof.

Been waiting for.... how long have I been here? Three years? Four?

What you binary illiterates can't get through your head is ------ not everything in the world is based on some fucking political party. Because not everything is political.

Well gee, let's see here. How many political parties were there? Who was getting voted out of office? Which party was in power in the south when they lost the right to own slaves? Which party was in power in the states that wanted to secede? Which party controlled the states in which Jim Crow laws were passed? And if it wasn't political, why was the purpose of the KKK to intimidate REPUBLICANS? Who was threatened by the Republican Party? Duh, let's see.....DEMOCRATS maybe?

 

[buckeye45_73]

The rest of this post really didn't follow, it's a separate issue altogether but....

But to people like that, they try to say conservatives are racist and always have, I've debunked the southern strategy many times.

So my question is if conservatives were the racists, and they came to the republican party in the late 60s/early 70s (they didn't, but I humor the left), then tell me when the last time the democrat candidate was more conservative than the republican?

--- at the risk of self-indulgence I'll repost one from recently that is more or less on this tangent:

--- the Republicans of 1860 weren't the Democrats obviously, but they were (a) the Liberals, considerably to the left of Democrats, and (b) the party of activist central government, a legacy of the Whigs that populated them (Lincoln for one) while the Democrats were the Conservatives and the party of "states rights" or "smaller government".

Obviously that's not where we are today, but that didn't shift in 1964. It shifted as the 19th century became the 20th, when the RP gradually abandoned its Liberalism and took on the interests of corporations and the wealthy, and the DP absorbed the Populist movement, culminating in FDR, which is exactly where the black population started voting Democratic and has been ever since. If there's a magnetic reversal of the parties, that's where it is, and deserves to be observed as such.

Now 1964 was simply the final straw in that North-South conflict that aforementioned magnetic pole reversal created and exacerbated; while the DP had moved significantly to the left in the '30s, it still had the bipolar problem of the conservative South hanging on, who hated "Liberals" but hated even more the idea of having anything to do with the "party of Lincoln" that had vanquished and humiliated them (and the only reason they were hanging on), so they teetered in an uneasy alliance often broken by the aforementioned split in 1948 (and a less dramatic breakdown in 1924), and of course George Wallace's endless ranting against "liberals", even putting off a similar run in 1964 at the request of Barry Goldwater, which would have taken all the support Goldwater had (and then offered to be Goldwater's running mate).

So these opposing forces had always been there unresolved, and stayed unresolved until LBJ dispensed with the jellyfish-think and signed the CRA. This prompted Strom Thurmond to do what was for exactly 99 years unthinkable, and become a Republican, far more in line with the South's conservative values anyway. In effect it was simple traditional spite that had kept them hanging on some thirty years to a party that was increasingly foreign to their perceived interests.

Thurmond's move, sudden as it was, was not without a prior indicator --- he had dipped a toe in the water in 1952 when he endorsed Eisenhower, and in retaliation the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot -- he had to run in his next re-election as a write-in (which he won) --- which is yet one more indication that, even if it was unthinkable to be a Republican, it was more important to be a Son of the South than to be a Democrat.

Sorry but it's never easy to recount this in a quick sound bite. Can't be done.

I'm not sure it's possible to articulate how strongly this emotional tide, the one against "the party of Lincoln", the North in general, and "liberals" --- held on in the South. I saw it in my own lifetime, in no uncertain terms, not so much in my Southern relatives (they were after all relatives) but absolutely in the population surrounding them. When I was little I seriously wondered if we would get shot for being "yankees". The tension was so thick you could have cut it with a knife. And this is nearly a century after the Civil War, which was still even then a topic of everyday conversation.

That's no longer the case today but the significance of the positions Johnson and Thurmond took in 1964 as a cultural purge, aside from the superficially political, probably cannot be overemphasized.

​

(/offtopic)

The problem with that, is it's more complicated. WHY?>
Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because there were conservative republicans under Lincoln, watch the movie.

Abraham Lincoln was the first president elected by the newly formed Republican Party, and Lincoln has been an iconic figure for American politicians of both parties. According to historian Striner, "...it is vain to try to classify Lincoln as a clear-cut conservative or liberal, as some historians have tried. He was both, and his politics engendered a long-term tradition of centrism..."
During the war, Lincoln was the leader of the moderate Republicans who fought the Radical Republicans on the issues of dealing with slavery and re-integrating the South into the nation. He built the stronger coalition, holding together conservative and moderate Republicans

They had considered Carnegie. Rockefellar and the like as the conservative wing of the party.

WH Taft was the conservative wing of the republicans in 1908.

Bob Taft was a staunch conservative

All this time far better than democrats on civil rights, even in the 60s the conservative republicans were better.

BUT, conservatives oppose affirmative action, a form of racism and other laws forcing people to fill quotas. Republicans tend to be right to work. You business is your business.

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

And if you think I'm full of shit, just let me know the last time the democrats ran the more conservative candidate.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo consistently avoids addressing the inconvenient fact that the Klan was created for the purpose of intimidating and terrorizing Republicans. What logic would dictate that the KKK founders were conservatives or independents? That leaves one party, the party that supported slavery, founded the KKK and implemented Jim Crow laws. One party...DEMOCRAT.

Then show us the proof.

Been waiting for.... how long have I been here? Three years? Four?

What you binary illiterates can't get through your head is ------ not everything in the world is based on some fucking political party. Because not everything is political.

Well gee, let's see here. How many political parties were there? Who was getting voted out of office? Which party was in power in the south when they lost the right to own slaves? Which party was in power in the states that wanted to secede? Which party controlled the states in which Jim Crow laws were passed? And if it wasn't political, why was the purpose of the KKK to intimidate REPUBLICANS? Who was threatened by the Republican Party? Duh, let's see.....DEMOCRATS maybe?

so the word "proof" was too big for ya? Going "wull, gee Wally, it's just gotta be because it seems like it" doesn't cut it.

Here, I've done this over and over-- here's another recent repost that will fly right over your head since you can't read:

=> In fact, the beginning of the Klan involved nothing so sinister, subversive or ancient as the theories supposed. It was the boredom of small-town life that led six young Confederate veterans to gather around a fireplace one December evening in 1865 and form a social club. the place was Pulaski, Tenn., near the Alabama border. when they reassembled a week later, the six young men were full of ideas for their new society. it would be secret, to heighten the amusement of the thing, and the titles for the various offices were to have names as preposterous-sounding as possible, partly for the fun of it and partly to avoid any military or political implications. <= --- The Unusual Origins of the Ku Klux Klan, p. 9, compiled by Klanwatch

That was from this thread, where posts 96 and 100 go into further detail about what happened next. And there are many many more.
Knock yourself out -- at least that thread is actually about the Klan. This one is not.

 

[oreo]

The Dems in 1964 beat down the bad side of the party, and in 2016 the GOP is falling to the evil side of the party,

Fallin: Trump 'trying to campaign as a racial healer'

Donald Trump is a magnet for protests because of his mouth and his offensive remarks toward large voting blocks.

Latino's have been wholly offended by his remarks. He was cut off from the largest Hispanic T.V cable news network in this country for a reason. Even Latino Republican conservatives stated months ago they will not support or vote for Trump. This when the GOP nominee, historically needed at least 40% of the Hispanic Vote to win the White House, Trump is polling at an historic negative 80%.
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
Poll: 8 in 10 Hispanics don’t like Trump
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study

Donald Trump was endorsed by the KKK. The only people that are attracted to him are mostly WHITE males. If you watch his rallies, they're an all white angry, ignorant mob. His rallies are reminiscent of a white rally that came right out of the 1960's civil rights movement and they're just as stupid.
Ku Klux Klan Leader Endorses Donald Trump for President

No Donald Trump is no healer--he is the poster boy of racial hate in this country. He's not a Uniter he's a Divider.

Here is a great chart & article of the demographics of the type of people who are attracted to Donald Trump.
Yikes: Can Trump Fix These Polling Numbers?

 

[S.J.]

Here, I've done this over and over--

Yeah, you think by posting the same bullshit over and over somehow makes it true.

 

[Pogo]

The rest of this post really didn't follow, it's a separate issue altogether but....

But to people like that, they try to say conservatives are racist and always have, I've debunked the southern strategy many times.

So my question is if conservatives were the racists, and they came to the republican party in the late 60s/early 70s (they didn't, but I humor the left), then tell me when the last time the democrat candidate was more conservative than the republican?

--- at the risk of self-indulgence I'll repost one from recently that is more or less on this tangent:

--- the Republicans of 1860 weren't the Democrats obviously, but they were (a) the Liberals, considerably to the left of Democrats, and (b) the party of activist central government, a legacy of the Whigs that populated them (Lincoln for one) while the Democrats were the Conservatives and the party of "states rights" or "smaller government".

Obviously that's not where we are today, but that didn't shift in 1964. It shifted as the 19th century became the 20th, when the RP gradually abandoned its Liberalism and took on the interests of corporations and the wealthy, and the DP absorbed the Populist movement, culminating in FDR, which is exactly where the black population started voting Democratic and has been ever since. If there's a magnetic reversal of the parties, that's where it is, and deserves to be observed as such.

Now 1964 was simply the final straw in that North-South conflict that aforementioned magnetic pole reversal created and exacerbated; while the DP had moved significantly to the left in the '30s, it still had the bipolar problem of the conservative South hanging on, who hated "Liberals" but hated even more the idea of having anything to do with the "party of Lincoln" that had vanquished and humiliated them (and the only reason they were hanging on), so they teetered in an uneasy alliance often broken by the aforementioned split in 1948 (and a less dramatic breakdown in 1924), and of course George Wallace's endless ranting against "liberals", even putting off a similar run in 1964 at the request of Barry Goldwater, which would have taken all the support Goldwater had (and then offered to be Goldwater's running mate).

So these opposing forces had always been there unresolved, and stayed unresolved until LBJ dispensed with the jellyfish-think and signed the CRA. This prompted Strom Thurmond to do what was for exactly 99 years unthinkable, and become a Republican, far more in line with the South's conservative values anyway. In effect it was simple traditional spite that had kept them hanging on some thirty years to a party that was increasingly foreign to their perceived interests.

Thurmond's move, sudden as it was, was not without a prior indicator --- he had dipped a toe in the water in 1952 when he endorsed Eisenhower, and in retaliation the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot -- he had to run in his next re-election as a write-in (which he won) --- which is yet one more indication that, even if it was unthinkable to be a Republican, it was more important to be a Son of the South than to be a Democrat.

Sorry but it's never easy to recount this in a quick sound bite. Can't be done.

I'm not sure it's possible to articulate how strongly this emotional tide, the one against "the party of Lincoln", the North in general, and "liberals" --- held on in the South. I saw it in my own lifetime, in no uncertain terms, not so much in my Southern relatives (they were after all relatives) but absolutely in the population surrounding them. When I was little I seriously wondered if we would get shot for being "yankees". The tension was so thick you could have cut it with a knife. And this is nearly a century after the Civil War, which was still even then a topic of everyday conversation.

That's no longer the case today but the significance of the positions Johnson and Thurmond took in 1964 as a cultural purge, aside from the superficially political, probably cannot be overemphasized.

​

(/offtopic)

The problem with that, is it's more complicated. WHY?>
Conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because there were conservative republicans under Lincoln, watch the movie.

Abraham Lincoln was the first president elected by the newly formed Republican Party, and Lincoln has been an iconic figure for American politicians of both parties. According to historian Striner, "...it is vain to try to classify Lincoln as a clear-cut conservative or liberal, as some historians have tried. He was both, and his politics engendered a long-term tradition of centrism..."
During the war, Lincoln was the leader of the moderate Republicans who fought the Radical Republicans on the issues of dealing with slavery and re-integrating the South into the nation. He built the stronger coalition, holding together conservative and moderate Republicans

They had considered Carnegie. Rockefellar and the like as the conservative wing of the party.

WH Taft was the conservative wing of the republicans in 1908.

Bob Taft was a staunch conservative

All this time far better than democrats on civil rights, even in the 60s the conservative republicans were better.

BUT, conservatives oppose affirmative action, a form of racism and other laws forcing people to fill quotas. Republicans tend to be right to work. You business is your business.

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

And if you think I'm full of shit, just let me know the last time the democrats ran the more conservative candidate.

"Watch the movie"?? Not sure what that means but if we're getting history from movies, no wonder we're fending off myths. That's how the second Klan got started.

You've got a bunch of people named there who are far removed from Lincoln's time, so you're not contradicting my evolution. It just synchs with it.

As far as Affirmative Action concept, that's actually where that copied post started, and the greater point was that issues like that don't originate and just take up residence forever in one political party, because political parties are not solid rocks that never move. As noted the RP when it was new was the Liberal party, and well to the left of the DP (and I already explained where that shifted). But in fact Republicans were the first purveyors of Affirmative Action, whether you count that from Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan in 1969 or whether you go back to the "40 acres and a mule" of the Civil War -- either way. The latter, and the whole Reconstruction saga of the Radical Republicans, was a legacy of the Whigs, the party at the time of "big government". Yet another manifestation of how political parties change with the winds.

 

[S.J.]

The Dems in 1964 beat down the bad side of the party, and in 2016 the GOP is falling to the evil side of the party,

Fallin: Trump 'trying to campaign as a racial healer'

Donald Trump is a magnet for protests because of his mouth and his offensive remarks toward large voting blocks.

Latino's have been wholly offended by his remarks. He was cut off from the largest Hispanic T.V cable news network in this country for a reason.
Even Latino Republican conservatives have stated they will not support or vote for Trump.
Latino conservatives: If Donald Trump is the nominee, we will not work to elect him
Poll: 8 in 10 Hispanics don’t like Trump

No Donald Trump is no healer--he is the poster boy of racial hate in this country. He's not a Uniter he's a Divider.

Blah, blah, blah. You're a one trick (racist) pony.

 

[Pogo]

Here, I've done this over and over--

Yeah, you think by posting the same bullshit over and over somehow makes it true.

The funny part is that you think by posting nothing over and over to prove your point, that somehow proves your point.
It doesn't.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nope, Forrest wasn't even there. It was founded by Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed and Frank O. McCord, six Confederate War vets, in a law office in Pulaski, Christmas Eve 1865. Once various regional groups started using the motif they got together in Nashville and elected Forrest to be the figurehead --- and he wasn't at that meeting either. Eventually he took the position, this would be Spring of 1867, and by January 1869, you are correct about this part, he issued his one and only general order disbanding the organization and ordering the various robes and hoods to be destroyed.

The actual membership of course ignored that order and ran amok until they were suppressed by Grant's federal government a few years later.

That was it until William "Colonel Joe" Simmons rekindled the Klan in 1915 on Stone Mountain, which would with the aid of a PR firm grow to be many many times bigger and more influential than the original although it didn't last long either.

But neither Simmons, nor Crowe, Kennedy, Lester, Jones, McCord or Reed had any known political affiliation. That wasn't really the point.

Go ahead --- find proof to the contrary.

You musta just fell off the turnip truck if you think this is my first round on this particular story, son.

Nathan Bedford Forrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forrest was an early member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Historian and Forrest biographer Brian Steel Wills writes, "While there is no doubt that Forrest joined the Klan, there is some question as to whether he actually was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1869, Forrest distanced himself from the Klan, when it got ugly, hoping to dissolve this incarnation of the KKK as a way of placating Republicans he needed for his new railroad ventures.[59]

I know this because we had a park named for him in Memphis, they changed it. Not my first rodeo either.

Correct, but you're walking back your previous post where you said he founded it. He didn't.

You're welcome.

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

 

[Pogo]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

 

[S.J.]

Here, I've done this over and over--

Yeah, you think by posting the same bullshit over and over somehow makes it true.

The funny part is that you think by posting nothing over and over to prove your point, that somehow proves your point.
It doesn't.

Hmm, so you think you're more knowledgeable about American history than historians (who make a living with their knowledge of history)?

 

[Pogo]

Nathan Bedford Forrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forrest was an early member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Historian and Forrest biographer Brian Steel Wills writes, "While there is no doubt that Forrest joined the Klan, there is some question as to whether he actually was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1869, Forrest distanced himself from the Klan, when it got ugly, hoping to dissolve this incarnation of the KKK as a way of placating Republicans he needed for his new railroad ventures.[59]

I know this because we had a park named for him in Memphis, they changed it. Not my first rodeo either.

Correct, but you're walking back your previous post where you said he founded it. He didn't.

You're welcome.

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Forrest really didn't "join" -- he was recruited at a meeting where he wasn't even present. In other words, drafted. Much like the Know Nothings drafted Fillmore in absentia.

 

[Pogo]

Here, I've done this over and over--

Yeah, you think by posting the same bullshit over and over somehow makes it true.

The funny part is that you think by posting nothing over and over to prove your point, that somehow proves your point.
It doesn't.

Hmm, so you think you're more knowledgeable about American history than historians (who make a living with their knowledge of history)?

What I think is that I know zero links when I see them.

 

[S.J.]

Correct, but you're walking back your previous post where you said he founded it. He didn't.

You're welcome.

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

 

[S.J.]

Here, I've done this over and over--

Yeah, you think by posting the same bullshit over and over somehow makes it true.

The funny part is that you think by posting nothing over and over to prove your point, that somehow proves your point.
It doesn't.

Hmm, so you think you're more knowledgeable about American history than historians (who make a living with their knowledge of history)?

What I think is that I know zero links when I see them.

Then you weren't watching.

 

[Dale Smith]

All we are saaaaayin'......is give Hitlery a chaaaaaaaaance!!!!!!


Yeah, that globalist POS that kisses the asses of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds will be a GREAT CEO of USA.INC....you betcha!!! New boss same as the old boss. Jake Starkey= Knows nothing moron.