Danny Bateman Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If me calling him a racist is spewing DNC talking points, what is it called when you "spew" all the negative stuff about Hillary? Or....you can just not answer that and we can leave those kinds of comments and accusations out of the conversation. Sorry, the reason I said that is that Hillary is launching her own ad claiming Trump and his supporters are all racist and bigots. That in and of itself is a huge stereotype and is ridiculous. There are 2 reasons she is doing this now: 1. To try to deflect from all the negative attention about the Clinton Foundation in order to change the media narrative. It could work, we'll see. 2. Trump is making very direct and open attempts to minorities and focusing on the lack of results that the Democratic party has delivered for them. Say what you want about Trump, but he has a way of capturing people's attention, and I think the Democrats fear that if he keeps discussing issues affecting black Americans, it may not cause them to switch their allegiance but simply stay home on election day. And most importantly, he's right. Black lives have gotten worse under Obama and Democratic policies. Dude, that's not what that ad said. Not at all. Stop dealing in absolutes! Be you a Sith? Even if we presuppose that Trump himself is not a racist, think about it this way: Donald Trump: Not racist, but #1 with racists! She wasn't saying that everyone that votes for Trump is in that group. But she was saying almost everyone in that group is voting for Trump. Why do you think they feel so damn comfy and at home in his camp? Clinton has said some cringey stuff about race, with the Superpredators thing being probably the worst of it. But Trump can't and won't form clear, coherent reasons why A) Hillary Clinton is a racist (she's not) and B) why he'd be the better candidate for minority Americans. He just straight up calls her a bigot and accuses her of pandering. It's just intellectually lazy and entirely ham-fisted... kind of like his sudden "outreach" to them. What are you smoking. Her campaign has called him a racist and bigot long before this ad, and if you don't think this ad is implying he is racist, you have your blinders on. Second, yes, Clinton has said several racist things, and has not been the champion for Black America that she claims to be. She and her campaign are getting worried that a GOP candidate is finally talking directly to Black voters, and he plans to continue to do so by visiting inner cities in Detroit, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Finally, as I keep stating, Democratic policies are NOT helping blacks, and Trump will keep hammering that message home. Hillary cannot refute that, so she has to rely on the old racial warfare argument of calling her opponent a racist. That's a typical Democratic ploy. 1. Donald Trump is a racist. Yes/no? 2. Donald Trump uses racism for his own gain. Yes/no? Go. 1. No, I don't believe Donald Trump is racist. I believe he is an egomaniac that likes to say things to get attention, and did so regularly in the primary season. 2. I don't believe Trump is using racism for his own gain. The Democrats are the party of racial and class warfare, and always have been. And I do agree with Trump's assertion that BLM is a divisive group furthering the racial divide in this country. Your turn: 1. Do you believe Hillary Clinton is racist? Yes/No 2. Do you believe Hillary Clinton uses racial warfare or plays the race card against her opponents to gain votes? 3. And I will throw in a third question for you. Do you believe Democratic policies, including in many inner cities that have been under Democratic leadership for decades, as well as under President Obama these past 7 years, have made Black Lives Better over the past 25 years? 1. No 2. I think Hillary Clinton plays a lot of cards against her opponents. It's what good politicians do. They exploit openings their opponents give them. As I openly admitted, she's said some cringey stuff, like Superpredators. She's also apologized for that, and said some very progressive things on racial matters. She's the one of the two that has said we as white people should put ourselves in the shoes of black Americans to understand their plight. Trump, by comparison, had this transcendent quote on race relations: “I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza — black guys counting my money!” O’Donnell’s book quoted Trump as saying. “I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” I think on the whole, the left tends to be very quick to play the race card. But I think they've also been the ones historically who've done the work to do outreach and earn the vote of the black community. They vote reliably Democrat for a reason, and it isn't because they are stupid, or that they've been duped. That's a silly, lazy narrative on Trump's part. But I also think certain cards are beyond the pale. Such cards would be making loosely veiled appeals to white supremacists or calling someone a bigot without being able to back it up. That's not good politics; that's just being a dick. 3. It's hard for me to muster an answer to that. I can speak from my own experiences, but I'm not yet 25. In a nutshell, I think we're heading in the right direction. It's a difficult thing to do to improve historically rough inner cities. From where I stand, I think Democrats accept as a reality racial inequality as a part of life, and Republicans want to move to a society where race is irrelevant. Obviously, open to interpretation. But if minorities think they don't have the same opportunities as their fellow white citizens, they're more apt to be receptive to the Dems viewpoint. Obviously, then, Dems create policies to try to address inequality. Dems go out and sue to get minority-suppressing voter ID laws stricken down; Republicans do not. Most Dems are at least neutral towards BLM; most Republicans I know are anti-BLM and opt for "Blue Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter." I could go on and on, but it should be no surprise that minorities typically vote Dem, as it seems to me they've done a vastly superior job trying to engage with and help them. Link to comment
huskerfan2000 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 I saw one of Trump's campaign people yesterday saying over and over that Trump doesn't see color at all. That basically epitomizes how clueless Trump and his staff are. People are different. There is NO problem with "seeing color" and appreciating other peoples' cultures and differences. Most of the time when someone says they "don't see color," they're at the very least subconsciously racist or ignorant or have never been friends with someone who's not their own race. It's also something that very defensive people say. It's what people who are being accused of racism say because they hope it sounds good. Part of that comment was focused on the fact that Hillary sees people of color as simply a vote and expects all blacks to continue to vote strongly Democratic despite data showing Democratic policies have made black lives worse. And...Trump didn't give a crap about them until someone got it through his thick scull that he's getting his ass kicked. His new found love of blacks and Mexicans is pretty dang fake. Hmm...his actions speak volumes. He has employed thousands of minorities and is talking about an issue most GOP candidates shy away from...the reality that black lives have gotten worse under Democratic policies. Come on man...... I know some extremely racist people who employ minorities. Employing them doesn't mean squat. And....I didn't say anything about disagreeing that Democratic policies have not done what they claimed they would. Obviously they have stunk. Cmon man...do you really think Trump is racist after watching that video and seeing him interact with minorities througjout his whole life. I agree he has certainly said some dumb things to get attention, but you are starting to spew DNC talking points claiming he is a racist. Pardon me for my very jaded pessimism in political processes. It looks like a political campaign piece put together to convince everyone the guy isn't racist. Sorry, I'll take his history of problems that have been spelled out here along with crap he has said in the last 12 months and go with that. So here are 10 examples of when Hillary Clinton demonstrated Racism including calling black males "super predators." Are you willing to state she is racist too based upon these facts? Here are just a few stories discussing her racism, including by left-leaning outfits like Huffington Post and Salon. And if you are wanting to go back to the middle of the 20th century, let's not forget that Hillary campaigned for Goldwater who was staunchly against the Civil Rights movement. http://downtrend.com/71superb/top-ten-examples-of-hillary-clintons-racism-the-media-chooses-to-ignore http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html http://www.salon.com/2016/05/19/off_the_reservation_4_times_hillary_clintons_racism_showed/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/14/bernie_sanders_calls_out_hillary_clinton_for_racist_language.html http://conservativecorporatism.blogspot.com/2016/02/proof-hillary-is-racist-against-people.html Oh, and let's not forget that Hillary delivered this message for Senator Byrd who is a known supporter of the KKK. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Hillary's campaign is launching an attack against Trump claiming he's racist and that his supporters are bigots, and just 6 years ago she sang the praises of a known racist in Byrd. All I can say is that Hillary may be doing this for some short-term gain to distract from her Clinton Foundation servers, but she may regret it as Trump will punch back hard and point out all the racist statements she has made, and racist people she has supported over the years. In doing so, that may further cause blacks to stay home, and Hillary will not win if she does not have an enthusiastic black turnout. This will be explained away and/or ignored by Hillary fans! but, but, she is more qualified. Link to comment
huskerfan2000 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If me calling him a racist is spewing DNC talking points, what is it called when you "spew" all the negative stuff about Hillary? Or....you can just not answer that and we can leave those kinds of comments and accusations out of the conversation. Sorry, the reason I said that is that Hillary is launching her own ad claiming Trump and his supporters are all racist and bigots. That in and of itself is a huge stereotype and is ridiculous. There are 2 reasons she is doing this now: 1. To try to deflect from all the negative attention about the Clinton Foundation in order to change the media narrative. It could work, we'll see. 2. Trump is making very direct and open attempts to minorities and focusing on the lack of results that the Democratic party has delivered for them. Say what you want about Trump, but he has a way of capturing people's attention, and I think the Democrats fear that if he keeps discussing issues affecting black Americans, it may not cause them to switch their allegiance but simply stay home on election day. And most importantly, he's right. Black lives have gotten worse under Obama and Democratic policies. Dude, that's not what that ad said. Not at all. Stop dealing in absolutes! Be you a Sith? Even if we presuppose that Trump himself is not a racist, think about it this way: Donald Trump: Not racist, but #1 with racists! She wasn't saying that everyone that votes for Trump is in that group. But she was saying almost everyone in that group is voting for Trump. Why do you think they feel so damn comfy and at home in his camp? Clinton has said some cringey stuff about race, with the Superpredators thing being probably the worst of it. But Trump can't and won't form clear, coherent reasons why A) Hillary Clinton is a racist (she's not) and B) why he'd be the better candidate for minority Americans. He just straight up calls her a bigot and accuses her of pandering. It's just intellectually lazy and entirely ham-fisted... kind of like his sudden "outreach" to them. What are you smoking. Her campaign has called him a racist and bigot long before this ad, and if you don't think this ad is implying he is racist, you have your blinders on. Second, yes, Clinton has said several racist things, and has not been the champion for Black America that she claims to be. She and her campaign are getting worried that a GOP candidate is finally talking directly to Black voters, and he plans to continue to do so by visiting inner cities in Detroit, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Finally, as I keep stating, Democratic policies are NOT helping blacks, and Trump will keep hammering that message home. Hillary cannot refute that, so she has to rely on the old racial warfare argument of calling her opponent a racist. That's a typical Democratic ploy. 1. Donald Trump is a racist. Yes/no? 2. Donald Trump uses racism for his own gain. Yes/no? Go. 1. No, I don't believe Donald Trump is racist. I believe he is an egomaniac that likes to say things to get attention, and did so regularly in the primary season. 2. I don't believe Trump is using racism for his own gain. The Democrats are the party of racial and class warfare, and always have been. And I do agree with Trump's assertion that BLM is a divisive group furthering the racial divide in this country. Your turn: 1. Do you believe Hillary Clinton is racist? Yes/No 2. Do you believe Hillary Clinton uses racial warfare or plays the race card against her opponents to gain votes? 3. And I will throw in a third question for you. Do you believe Democratic policies, including in many inner cities that have been under Democratic leadership for decades, as well as under President Obama these past 7 years, have made Black Lives Better over the past 25 years? Really, I don't want to call myself a Democrat, but it's the masses of people holding your mindset that prevent me from taking the Republican party seriously. It's plain as day that Trump is a racist and entirely unfit to hold office at any level but you'll look for any way to defend him and his actions. You'll try to turn this into a discussion about Hillary but every single negative thing you say about her you'll be able to look at Trump on that same issue and see that he has topped her in an appalling manner....assuming you apply logic to the situation instead of looking at the letter next to their name. applying logic.. good idea. If you really apply logic then you can't ignore what was presented about Hillary while bashing Trump. Are you applying logic or defending your Hillary? Regardless of thinking she is racist because of what she has said, she has shown time and again she is a say anything person.. hardly qualified to be president! Just holding the past positions she has doesn't automatically make you qualified! Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you meet a KKK member, what party would you guess he belongs to?Democrat/RepublicanGo 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Who's the guy who always points out that the KKK were Democrats 50-60 years ago? That's coming in 3...2...1... 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you meet a KKK member, what party would you guess he belongs to? Democrat/Repulixan Go Yes some will say - what have you done for me lately (thinking of the republicans), but when I think of which party has been historically been associated wt racism, it is a easy choice - Democrats - going all the way back to Andrew Jackson (his actions led to the Trail of Tears under Van Buren, pushed to maintained the slavery status quo balance between the states), Civil War, segregation, and even the Civil Rights bills of 1957 Eisenhower push and 1964 (much higher % of repubs voting for it in Congress than dems). Racism besides being overt also includes pandering (There have been several recordings of Hillary's voice when she is talking primarily to an AA audience- gets real southern and AA sounding) and enacting policies that keep minorities 'on the plantation' via dependence to the welfare state. (Note Republicans have their own plantation policies also - keeping pro-life voters on the plantation by making big promises they don't keep on that subject) In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats. A few names come quickly to mind: KKK Robert Byrd, Strom Thurman before he became a republican, Former Ark Senator James William Fulbright an avid Klan's member and a vocal and open supporter of segregation, and was 100% against the civil rights movement, & since 1966 a mentor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Orval Faubus (born Orval Eugene Faubus; January 7, 1910 – December 14, 1994) was an American politician who served as 36th Governor of Arkansas from 1955 to 1967. He is best remembered for his 1957 stand against desegregation of the Little Rock School District during the Little Rock Crisis, in which he defied a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending Little Rock Central High School. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/ Interesting opinion article by respected opinion writer Paul Greenberg from the Ark Democrat Gazette in 1997 regarding Faubus and Clinton. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19971010&id=mHNeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tmENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5708,1664517&hl=en The Southern Manifesto against Brown http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-southern-manifesto-and-massive-resistance-brown "If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that, in time, the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.” Senator Harry Flood Byrd, 1954 Almost immediately after Chief Justice Earl Warren finished reading the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in the early afternoon of May 17, 1954, Southern white political leaders condemned the decision and vowed to defy it. James Eastland, the powerful Senator from Mississippi, declared that “the South will not abide by nor obey this legislative decision by a political body.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia described the opinion as “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” At the time, Senator Byrd headed the “Byrd Machine,” Virginia’s most powerful political organization. He became the leading architect behind Virginia’s diehard segregationist campaign. In August of 1964, Virginia Governor Thomas Bahnson Stanley created a commission to conspire to defy Brown. The Gray commission, named after State Senator Garland Gray, held that school attendance should not be compulsory; money should be allocated to parents as tuition grants if they opposed integration; and authorized local school boards would assign students to schools themselves. By 1956, Senator Byrd had created a coalition of nearly 100 Southern politicians to sign on to his “Southern Manifesto” an agreement to resist the implementation of Brown. On February 25, 1956, Senator Byrd issued the call for “Massive Resistance” -- a collection of laws passed in response to the Brown decision that aggressively tried to forestall and prevent school integration. For instance, the Massive Resistance doctrine included a law that punished any public school that integrated by eliminating its state funds and eventually closing the school. In addition to legal and legislative resistance, the white population of the southern United States mobilized en masse to nullify the Supreme Court’s decree. In states across the South, whites set up private academies to educate their children, at first using public funds to support the attendance of their children in these segregated facilities, until the use of public funds was successfully challenged in court. In other instances, segregationists tried to intimidate black families by threats of violence and economic reprisals against plaintiffs in local cases. Thurgood Marshall described the situation in Mississippi to the NAACP’s regional secretary in September 1954 as such: All credit has been withdrawn from the president of new branch, a storekeeper in Lelzoni. Stringer, in Columbus is being smeared through the American Legion…… His credit was withdrawn in Columbus several months ago…One of our members who signed [a] petition in Walthall county did not receive renewal of his contract to drive the school bus….Dr. Battle, one of our key people in Indianola, says a large number of his patients on nearby plantations are now former patients. The most egregious violators simply closed the public schools. In response to a May 1, 1959 order to integrate its schools, officials in Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its entire public school system instead. The entire public school system remained closed for the next five years. In September 1958 as schools in Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Warren County were on the verge of integration via court order, they were closed by state officials. Although the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the school-closure law, the General Assembly made school attendance optional. Meanwhile, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas became a staging ground for an alarming picture of democracy gone astray. The response to the presence of the Little Rock 9 was so violent that President Eisenhower felt compelled to call in the National Guard. The Little Rock 9 case resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision Cooper v. Aaron (1958), a landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Brown and the obligation of states to follow the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate schools. In the face of this fierce and ongoing resistance, LDF sued hundreds of school districts across the country to vindicate the promise of Brown. It was not until LDF’s later victories in Green v. County School Board (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) that the Supreme Court issued mandates that segregation be dismantled “root and branch.” In these rulings, the Court outlined specific factors to be considered to eliminate the effects of segregation and ensured that federal district courts were able to more forthrightly to exercise their authority. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If me calling him a racist is spewing DNC talking points, what is it called when you "spew" all the negative stuff about Hillary? Or....you can just not answer that and we can leave those kinds of comments and accusations out of the conversation. Sorry, the reason I said that is that Hillary is launching her own ad claiming Trump and his supporters are all racist and bigots. That in and of itself is a huge stereotype and is ridiculous. There are 2 reasons she is doing this now: 1. To try to deflect from all the negative attention about the Clinton Foundation in order to change the media narrative. It could work, we'll see. 2. Trump is making very direct and open attempts to minorities and focusing on the lack of results that the Democratic party has delivered for them. Say what you want about Trump, but he has a way of capturing people's attention, and I think the Democrats fear that if he keeps discussing issues affecting black Americans, it may not cause them to switch their allegiance but simply stay home on election day. And most importantly, he's right. Black lives have gotten worse under Obama and Democratic policies. Dude, that's not what that ad said. Not at all. Stop dealing in absolutes! Be you a Sith? Even if we presuppose that Trump himself is not a racist, think about it this way: Donald Trump: Not racist, but #1 with racists! She wasn't saying that everyone that votes for Trump is in that group. But she was saying almost everyone in that group is voting for Trump. Why do you think they feel so damn comfy and at home in his camp? Clinton has said some cringey stuff about race, with the Superpredators thing being probably the worst of it. But Trump can't and won't form clear, coherent reasons why A) Hillary Clinton is a racist (she's not) and B) why he'd be the better candidate for minority Americans. He just straight up calls her a bigot and accuses her of pandering. It's just intellectually lazy and entirely ham-fisted... kind of like his sudden "outreach" to them. What are you smoking. Her campaign has called him a racist and bigot long before this ad, and if you don't think this ad is implying he is racist, you have your blinders on. Second, yes, Clinton has said several racist things, and has not been the champion for Black America that she claims to be. She and her campaign are getting worried that a GOP candidate is finally talking directly to Black voters, and he plans to continue to do so by visiting inner cities in Detroit, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Finally, as I keep stating, Democratic policies are NOT helping blacks, and Trump will keep hammering that message home. Hillary cannot refute that, so she has to rely on the old racial warfare argument of calling her opponent a racist. That's a typical Democratic ploy. 1. Donald Trump is a racist. Yes/no? 2. Donald Trump uses racism for his own gain. Yes/no? Go. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you meet a KKK member, what party would you guess he belongs to? Democrat/Repulixan Go Yes some will say - what have you done for me lately (thinking of the republicans), but when I think of which party has been historically been associated wt racism, it is a easy choice - Democrats - going all the way back to Andrew Jackson (his actions led to the Trail of Tears under Van Buren, pushed to maintained the slavery status quo balance between the states), Civil War, segregation, and even the Civil Rights bills of 1957 Eisenhower push and 1964 (much higher % of repubs voting for it in Congress than dems). Racism besides being overt also includes pandering (There have been several recordings of Hillary's voice when she is talking primarily to an AA audience- gets real southern and AA sounding) and enacting policies that keep minorities 'on the plantation' via dependence to the welfare state. (Note Republicans have their own plantation policies also - keeping pro-life voters on the plantation by making big promises they don't keep on that subject) In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats. A few names come quickly to mind: KKK Robert Byrd, Strom Thurman before he became a republican, Former Ark Senator James William Fulbright an avid Klan's member and a vocal and open supporter of segregation, and was 100% against the civil rights movement, & since 1966 a mentor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Orval Faubus (born Orval Eugene Faubus; January 7, 1910 – December 14, 1994) was an American politician who served as 36th Governor of Arkansas from 1955 to 1967. He is best remembered for his 1957 stand against desegregation of the Little Rock School District during the Little Rock Crisis, in which he defied a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending Little Rock Central High School. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/ Interesting opinion article by respected opinion writer Paul Greenberg from the Ark Democrat Gazette in 1997 regarding Faubus and Clinton. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19971010&id=mHNeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tmENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5708,1664517&hl=en The Southern Manifesto against Brown http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-southern-manifesto-and-massive-resistance-brown "If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that, in time, the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.” Senator Harry Flood Byrd, 1954 Almost immediately after Chief Justice Earl Warren finished reading the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in the early afternoon of May 17, 1954, Southern white political leaders condemned the decision and vowed to defy it. James Eastland, the powerful Senator from Mississippi, declared that “the South will not abide by nor obey this legislative decision by a political body.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia described the opinion as “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” At the time, Senator Byrd headed the “Byrd Machine,” Virginia’s most powerful political organization. He became the leading architect behind Virginia’s diehard segregationist campaign. In August of 1964, Virginia Governor Thomas Bahnson Stanley created a commission to conspire to defy Brown. The Gray commission, named after State Senator Garland Gray, held that school attendance should not be compulsory; money should be allocated to parents as tuition grants if they opposed integration; and authorized local school boards would assign students to schools themselves. By 1956, Senator Byrd had created a coalition of nearly 100 Southern politicians to sign on to his “Southern Manifesto” an agreement to resist the implementation of Brown. On February 25, 1956, Senator Byrd issued the call for “Massive Resistance” -- a collection of laws passed in response to the Brown decision that aggressively tried to forestall and prevent school integration. For instance, the Massive Resistance doctrine included a law that punished any public school that integrated by eliminating its state funds and eventually closing the school. In addition to legal and legislative resistance, the white population of the southern United States mobilized en masse to nullify the Supreme Court’s decree. In states across the South, whites set up private academies to educate their children, at first using public funds to support the attendance of their children in these segregated facilities, until the use of public funds was successfully challenged in court. In other instances, segregationists tried to intimidate black families by threats of violence and economic reprisals against plaintiffs in local cases. Thurgood Marshall described the situation in Mississippi to the NAACP’s regional secretary in September 1954 as such: All credit has been withdrawn from the president of new branch, a storekeeper in Lelzoni. Stringer, in Columbus is being smeared through the American Legion…… His credit was withdrawn in Columbus several months ago…One of our members who signed [a] petition in Walthall county did not receive renewal of his contract to drive the school bus….Dr. Battle, one of our key people in Indianola, says a large number of his patients on nearby plantations are now former patients. The most egregious violators simply closed the public schools. In response to a May 1, 1959 order to integrate its schools, officials in Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its entire public school system instead. The entire public school system remained closed for the next five years. In September 1958 as schools in Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Warren County were on the verge of integration via court order, they were closed by state officials. Although the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the school-closure law, the General Assembly made school attendance optional. Meanwhile, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas became a staging ground for an alarming picture of democracy gone astray. The response to the presence of the Little Rock 9 was so violent that President Eisenhower felt compelled to call in the National Guard. The Little Rock 9 case resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision Cooper v. Aaron (1958), a landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Brown and the obligation of states to follow the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate schools. In the face of this fierce and ongoing resistance, LDF sued hundreds of school districts across the country to vindicate the promise of Brown. It was not until LDF’s later victories in Green v. County School Board (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) that the Supreme Court issued mandates that segregation be dismantled “root and branch.” In these rulings, the Court outlined specific factors to be considered to eliminate the effects of segregation and ensured that federal district courts were able to more forthrightly to exercise their authority. Did that answer my question? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you meet a KKK member, what party would you guess he belongs to? Democrat/Repulixan Go Yes some will say - what have you done for me lately (thinking of the republicans), but when I think of which party has been historically been associated wt racism, it is a easy choice - Democrats - going all the way back to Andrew Jackson (his actions led to the Trail of Tears under Van Buren, pushed to maintained the slavery status quo balance between the states), Civil War, segregation, and even the Civil Rights bills of 1957 Eisenhower push and 1964 (much higher % of repubs voting for it in Congress than dems). Racism besides being overt also includes pandering (There have been several recordings of Hillary's voice when she is talking primarily to an AA audience- gets real southern and AA sounding) and enacting policies that keep minorities 'on the plantation' via dependence to the welfare state. (Note Republicans have their own plantation policies also - keeping pro-life voters on the plantation by making big promises they don't keep on that subject) In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats. A few names come quickly to mind: KKK Robert Byrd, Strom Thurman before he became a republican, Former Ark Senator James William Fulbright an avid Klan's member and a vocal and open supporter of segregation, and was 100% against the civil rights movement, & since 1966 a mentor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Orval Faubus (born Orval Eugene Faubus; January 7, 1910 – December 14, 1994) was an American politician who served as 36th Governor of Arkansas from 1955 to 1967. He is best remembered for his 1957 stand against desegregation of the Little Rock School District during the Little Rock Crisis, in which he defied a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending Little Rock Central High School. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/ Interesting opinion article by respected opinion writer Paul Greenberg from the Ark Democrat Gazette in 1997 regarding Faubus and Clinton. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19971010&id=mHNeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tmENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5708,1664517&hl=en The Southern Manifesto against Brown http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-southern-manifesto-and-massive-resistance-brown "If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that, in time, the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.” Senator Harry Flood Byrd, 1954 Almost immediately after Chief Justice Earl Warren finished reading the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in the early afternoon of May 17, 1954, Southern white political leaders condemned the decision and vowed to defy it. James Eastland, the powerful Senator from Mississippi, declared that “the South will not abide by nor obey this legislative decision by a political body.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia described the opinion as “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” At the time, Senator Byrd headed the “Byrd Machine,” Virginia’s most powerful political organization. He became the leading architect behind Virginia’s diehard segregationist campaign. In August of 1964, Virginia Governor Thomas Bahnson Stanley created a commission to conspire to defy Brown. The Gray commission, named after State Senator Garland Gray, held that school attendance should not be compulsory; money should be allocated to parents as tuition grants if they opposed integration; and authorized local school boards would assign students to schools themselves. By 1956, Senator Byrd had created a coalition of nearly 100 Southern politicians to sign on to his “Southern Manifesto” an agreement to resist the implementation of Brown. On February 25, 1956, Senator Byrd issued the call for “Massive Resistance” -- a collection of laws passed in response to the Brown decision that aggressively tried to forestall and prevent school integration. For instance, the Massive Resistance doctrine included a law that punished any public school that integrated by eliminating its state funds and eventually closing the school. In addition to legal and legislative resistance, the white population of the southern United States mobilized en masse to nullify the Supreme Court’s decree. In states across the South, whites set up private academies to educate their children, at first using public funds to support the attendance of their children in these segregated facilities, until the use of public funds was successfully challenged in court. In other instances, segregationists tried to intimidate black families by threats of violence and economic reprisals against plaintiffs in local cases. Thurgood Marshall described the situation in Mississippi to the NAACP’s regional secretary in September 1954 as such: All credit has been withdrawn from the president of new branch, a storekeeper in Lelzoni. Stringer, in Columbus is being smeared through the American Legion…… His credit was withdrawn in Columbus several months ago…One of our members who signed [a] petition in Walthall county did not receive renewal of his contract to drive the school bus….Dr. Battle, one of our key people in Indianola, says a large number of his patients on nearby plantations are now former patients. The most egregious violators simply closed the public schools. In response to a May 1, 1959 order to integrate its schools, officials in Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its entire public school system instead. The entire public school system remained closed for the next five years. In September 1958 as schools in Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Warren County were on the verge of integration via court order, they were closed by state officials. Although the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the school-closure law, the General Assembly made school attendance optional. Meanwhile, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas became a staging ground for an alarming picture of democracy gone astray. The response to the presence of the Little Rock 9 was so violent that President Eisenhower felt compelled to call in the National Guard. The Little Rock 9 case resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision Cooper v. Aaron (1958), a landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Brown and the obligation of states to follow the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate schools. In the face of this fierce and ongoing resistance, LDF sued hundreds of school districts across the country to vindicate the promise of Brown. It was not until LDF’s later victories in Green v. County School Board (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) that the Supreme Court issued mandates that segregation be dismantled “root and branch.” In these rulings, the Court outlined specific factors to be considered to eliminate the effects of segregation and ensured that federal district courts were able to more forthrightly to exercise their authority. Did that answer my question? Yes, Democrat Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Honest question: What are these democratic policies that have hurt minorities? 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Far be it from me to stick up for a former Klansman, but to his credit, at least Byrd realized he was wrong later in life and owned up to his mistakes. Straight from his wikipedia page: Late in his life, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier views favoring racial segregation.[56][57] Byrd said that he regretted filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964[58] and would change it if he had the opportunity. He said joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made."[56] Byrd also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that African-Americans love their children as much as he does his.[59] In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13] I mean, his KKK involvement was in his early 20s. I'd wager we all did some stupid stuff at that age. Hopefully not as bad as joining the damn Klan, but at such were the times then, I suppose. At least give the guy credit for changing his ways. It also mentioned he had a 100% voting record from the NAACP, Trying to tie him to Clinton as her somehow supporting bigotry is more ham-handed crap from the Trump campaign that they likely ripped right off of Breitbart or the Drudge Report. On a meta note, I've always thought it kind of sucks that we view politicians in such a way that we expect them and their views to stay static. Like, when they change on anything, it's labeled a flip-flop and they're only doing it for the votes. Now, there is some of that, sure, but it must be tough for them to get hammered if they do have a legitimate change of heart on something just because they're a public official. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If me calling him a racist is spewing DNC talking points, what is it called when you "spew" all the negative stuff about Hillary? Or....you can just not answer that and we can leave those kinds of comments and accusations out of the conversation. Sorry, the reason I said that is that Hillary is launching her own ad claiming Trump and his supporters are all racist and bigots. That in and of itself is a huge stereotype and is ridiculous. There are 2 reasons she is doing this now: 1. To try to deflect from all the negative attention about the Clinton Foundation in order to change the media narrative. It could work, we'll see. 2. Trump is making very direct and open attempts to minorities and focusing on the lack of results that the Democratic party has delivered for them. Say what you want about Trump, but he has a way of capturing people's attention, and I think the Democrats fear that if he keeps discussing issues affecting black Americans, it may not cause them to switch their allegiance but simply stay home on election day. And most importantly, he's right. Black lives have gotten worse under Obama and Democratic policies. Dude, that's not what that ad said. Not at all. Stop dealing in absolutes! Be you a Sith? Even if we presuppose that Trump himself is not a racist, think about it this way: Donald Trump: Not racist, but #1 with racists! She wasn't saying that everyone that votes for Trump is in that group. But she was saying almost everyone in that group is voting for Trump. Why do you think they feel so damn comfy and at home in his camp? Clinton has said some cringey stuff about race, with the Superpredators thing being probably the worst of it. But Trump can't and won't form clear, coherent reasons why A) Hillary Clinton is a racist (she's not) and B) why he'd be the better candidate for minority Americans. He just straight up calls her a bigot and accuses her of pandering. It's just intellectually lazy and entirely ham-fisted... kind of like his sudden "outreach" to them. What are you smoking. Her campaign has called him a racist and bigot long before this ad, and if you don't think this ad is implying he is racist, you have your blinders on. Second, yes, Clinton has said several racist things, and has not been the champion for Black America that she claims to be. She and her campaign are getting worried that a GOP candidate is finally talking directly to Black voters, and he plans to continue to do so by visiting inner cities in Detroit, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Finally, as I keep stating, Democratic policies are NOT helping blacks, and Trump will keep hammering that message home. Hillary cannot refute that, so she has to rely on the old racial warfare argument of calling her opponent a racist. That's a typical Democratic ploy. 1. Donald Trump is a racist. Yes/no? 2. Donald Trump uses racism for his own gain. Yes/no? Go. 1. No, I don't believe Donald Trump is racist. I believe he is an egomaniac that likes to say things to get attention, and did so regularly in the primary season. 2. I don't believe Trump is using racism for his own gain. The Democrats are the party of racial and class warfare, and always have been. And I do agree with Trump's assertion that BLM is a divisive group furthering the racial divide in this country. Your turn: 1. Do you believe Hillary Clinton is racist? Yes/No 2. Do you believe Hillary Clinton uses racial warfare or plays the race card against her opponents to gain votes? 3. And I will throw in a third question for you. Do you believe Democratic policies, including in many inner cities that have been under Democratic leadership for decades, as well as under President Obama these past 7 years, have made Black Lives Better over the past 25 years? Really, I don't want to call myself a Democrat, but it's the masses of people holding your mindset that prevent me from taking the Republican party seriously. It's plain as day that Trump is a racist and entirely unfit to hold office at any level but you'll look for any way to defend him and his actions. You'll try to turn this into a discussion about Hillary but every single negative thing you say about her you'll be able to look at Trump on that same issue and see that he has topped her in an appalling manner....assuming you apply logic to the situation instead of looking at the letter next to their name. You have fallen for Hillary's propaganda. Trump is not a racist and has many African Americans in leadership positions in his company. He also has many black pastors supporting his nomination. I don't agree with everything he has said in the past, but the reason it's important to bring Hillary into the discussion is that she's the one making the accusations of racism, and it's a typical ploy from the left to paint your opponent as a racist when you can no longer defend how badly Democratic policies have affected the black community. How can you defend her use of the words super-predator to describe black males. I don't care if she apologized for it. Or how about being a member of a Whites-only country club. And let's not forget calling Robert Byrd, a guy who was a part of the KKK and opposed the civil rights movement, as her mentor. How can you bash Trump yet defend Hillary. I personally think both have said some deplorable things on race in the past, but to assume this is a one-sided issue demonstrates complete ignorance. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 So, we have : Clinton: Endorses and gives nice tribute to Byrd who in his 20s was a KKK member....however, later in life he realized the error of his ways and changed his attitude. Trump: Personally sued for racial discrimination, has been quoted as saying he will not allow black people to count his money because the are inherently lazy and racial quotes in just the last 12 months that are offensive. Hmmmm...... 3 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 If you meet a KKK member, what party would you guess he belongs to? Democrat/Repulixan Go Yes some will say - what have you done for me lately (thinking of the republicans), but when I think of which party has been historically been associated wt racism, it is a easy choice - Democrats - going all the way back to Andrew Jackson (his actions led to the Trail of Tears under Van Buren, pushed to maintained the slavery status quo balance between the states), Civil War, segregation, and even the Civil Rights bills of 1957 Eisenhower push and 1964 (much higher % of repubs voting for it in Congress than dems). Racism besides being overt also includes pandering (There have been several recordings of Hillary's voice when she is talking primarily to an AA audience- gets real southern and AA sounding) and enacting policies that keep minorities 'on the plantation' via dependence to the welfare state. (Note Republicans have their own plantation policies also - keeping pro-life voters on the plantation by making big promises they don't keep on that subject) In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats. A few names come quickly to mind: KKK Robert Byrd, Strom Thurman before he became a republican, Former Ark Senator James William Fulbright an avid Klan's member and a vocal and open supporter of segregation, and was 100% against the civil rights movement, & since 1966 a mentor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Orval Faubus (born Orval Eugene Faubus; January 7, 1910 – December 14, 1994) was an American politician who served as 36th Governor of Arkansas from 1955 to 1967. He is best remembered for his 1957 stand against desegregation of the Little Rock School District during the Little Rock Crisis, in which he defied a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from attending Little Rock Central High School. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/ Interesting opinion article by respected opinion writer Paul Greenberg from the Ark Democrat Gazette in 1997 regarding Faubus and Clinton. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19971010&id=mHNeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tmENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5708,1664517&hl=en The Southern Manifesto against Brown http://www.naacpldf.org/brown-at-60-southern-manifesto-and-massive-resistance-brown "If we can organize the Southern States for massive resistance to this order I think that, in time, the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.” Senator Harry Flood Byrd, 1954 Almost immediately after Chief Justice Earl Warren finished reading the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in the early afternoon of May 17, 1954, Southern white political leaders condemned the decision and vowed to defy it. James Eastland, the powerful Senator from Mississippi, declared that “the South will not abide by nor obey this legislative decision by a political body.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia described the opinion as “the most serious blow that has yet been struck against the rights of the states in a matter vitally affecting their authority and welfare.” At the time, Senator Byrd headed the “Byrd Machine,” Virginia’s most powerful political organization. He became the leading architect behind Virginia’s diehard segregationist campaign. In August of 1964, Virginia Governor Thomas Bahnson Stanley created a commission to conspire to defy Brown. The Gray commission, named after State Senator Garland Gray, held that school attendance should not be compulsory; money should be allocated to parents as tuition grants if they opposed integration; and authorized local school boards would assign students to schools themselves. By 1956, Senator Byrd had created a coalition of nearly 100 Southern politicians to sign on to his “Southern Manifesto” an agreement to resist the implementation of Brown. On February 25, 1956, Senator Byrd issued the call for “Massive Resistance” -- a collection of laws passed in response to the Brown decision that aggressively tried to forestall and prevent school integration. For instance, the Massive Resistance doctrine included a law that punished any public school that integrated by eliminating its state funds and eventually closing the school. In addition to legal and legislative resistance, the white population of the southern United States mobilized en masse to nullify the Supreme Court’s decree. In states across the South, whites set up private academies to educate their children, at first using public funds to support the attendance of their children in these segregated facilities, until the use of public funds was successfully challenged in court. In other instances, segregationists tried to intimidate black families by threats of violence and economic reprisals against plaintiffs in local cases. Thurgood Marshall described the situation in Mississippi to the NAACP’s regional secretary in September 1954 as such: All credit has been withdrawn from the president of new branch, a storekeeper in Lelzoni. Stringer, in Columbus is being smeared through the American Legion…… His credit was withdrawn in Columbus several months ago…One of our members who signed [a] petition in Walthall county did not receive renewal of his contract to drive the school bus….Dr. Battle, one of our key people in Indianola, says a large number of his patients on nearby plantations are now former patients. The most egregious violators simply closed the public schools. In response to a May 1, 1959 order to integrate its schools, officials in Prince Edward County, Virginia closed its entire public school system instead. The entire public school system remained closed for the next five years. In September 1958 as schools in Norfolk, Charlottesville, and Warren County were on the verge of integration via court order, they were closed by state officials. Although the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the school-closure law, the General Assembly made school attendance optional. Meanwhile, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas became a staging ground for an alarming picture of democracy gone astray. The response to the presence of the Little Rock 9 was so violent that President Eisenhower felt compelled to call in the National Guard. The Little Rock 9 case resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision Cooper v. Aaron (1958), a landmark ruling in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Brown and the obligation of states to follow the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court to desegregate schools. In the face of this fierce and ongoing resistance, LDF sued hundreds of school districts across the country to vindicate the promise of Brown. It was not until LDF’s later victories in Green v. County School Board (1968) and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971) that the Supreme Court issued mandates that segregation be dismantled “root and branch.” In these rulings, the Court outlined specific factors to be considered to eliminate the effects of segregation and ensured that federal district courts were able to more forthrightly to exercise their authority. Did that answer my question? Yes, Democrat No, your answer would have been correct 50-70 years ago. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 Honest question: What are these democratic policies that have hurt minorities? The welfare system and other government programs promoted by Democrats over decades has been designed in a way that has created now generations of families who all they know is living off the government. Actually, this isn't even racial even though more black people are on these programs than white. There are white families in the same situation. We have entire communities in cities where the unemployment is so high that when kids grow up, they don't even think about...."Hmmmm....what am I going to do for a living". Everyone they know doesn't work so why should they think about doing it? Then, if the government doesn't take care of them well enough, then they get angry at the government because that is the answer to their problems. The Democrats have thrived off of these communities for decades promising they will help their cause. But, they never really do. They just say the same thing every 4 years and then forget about it. Why should they? They get 90% of the votes from these communities and the laugh all the way to the bank. Link to comment
Recommended Posts