Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.
You you agree that is someone wears the Confederate flag on their clothing you should immediately label them.
Perhaps they had an ancestor who fought for the South and had pride in the family name.
Is that cause to hate them.
I think you have been frankly conditioned to be embarrassed of your own culture. That rarely helps.
I hope that is the case, I would not want to think you are a screaming bigot who automatically assumes that some people groups are evil.
...
Someone who wears a confederate flag, or has one on his car, or flies one from his house, demonstrates a most lamentable ignorance of the history of use and thereby the meaning of the symbol and why consequently it is genuinely repugnant to many modern Americans. Given the amount of media coverage on this issue, going back years, it is difficult to forgive such a level of ignorance as pure ignorance or stupidity, so it is easy to see why people might assume the flag wearer is a racist asshat even if he isn't.
Nonetheless, due to free speech, it is his right to fly the flag for whatever reason he decides. You can side with Voltaire on this, or cross the street holding your nose, depending on your inclination.
Confederate flags on gravestones 150 years old are okay. Flags in history books are okay. Flags in re-enactment are okay. Flags being flown by private individuals are not okay, but nothing can be done about that except a slow process of education to try and persuade them to stop. (Which to be honest I think would fail. The best thing is to take no notice of it.)
However it is government use of the flag rather than private use that is at issue here.
Wyrmalla wrote: The American Civil War was over slavery? I thought the issue that the South had was that they opposed all the states being bunched together under a central government. Hmn, I suppose the route causes were many, but saying that it was all down to that one thing is a gross simplification. For one the Union had plenty of people who supported slavery, hell Lincoln's opposition began with him just bowing down to public pressure on the matter (what was his line, "nobody wants you here, go back to Africa"). That and both sides treated foreigners pretty poorly in general (even when under the same flag things didn't get better fast, look at the railroad). Frankly that war had jack all to do with slavery, apart from to the politicians and those with money invested in the plantations, etc. The average guy was fighting for their state and the people they knew more than anything (Custer was originally going to lead the Union, but his home was in the South.).
The ACW was over many things. Slavery was a key topic, but the primary reasoning that many like to point it was state rights. The southern states felt that the FedGov was in violation of the constitution, stepping on the 10th Amendment left and right, to include the issue over slavery.
If you read the articles of Secession produced by the states, you'll see that for the majority of them, keeping Slavery was the #1 listed reason they were doing it. So I always have a good laugh when you have the revisionist who argue that slavery was not the primary cause of the war. It wasn't the only cause though, that is certain.
One thing that I do lament about the war, the North did such a good job of winning it that the argument for state rights almost doesn't even exist anymore today. The FedGov's level of power has simply sky rocketed since the days that hundreds of thousands of Americans were willing to give there lives over the issue.
The only issue I have with this post, is that the Southern States championed legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which itself was a pretty flagrant violation of states rights, particularly those of the northern states. In addition, some of the Declarations of secession, such as South Carolinas go on to discuss that the Federal government is too weak to enforce federal laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act and too weak to defend the institution of slavery. Further, it goes on to list state laws (all of which were within the power of a states right to pass) from northern states that they found issue with, such as the granting of citizenship and suffrage to blacks in certain northern states. There really isn't any argument that it was an issue of states rights, unless you mean it was an issue of a states right to practice slavery specifically.
Kind of hard to join the rebellion when, with Habeas Corpus suspended, those wanting to vote to do so (state politicians favoring the rebellion) were arrested and jailed to prevent the votes. Other states (Delaware and Maryland) had the Union army presence in DC and the surrounding area to convince them it would be a Bad Thing, plus by staying with the Union they got to keep their slaves initially (the emancipation proclamation deliberately only freed slaves in states that rebelled). Kentucky tried to stay neutral, but basically both sides recruited from the population, and when the rebels under Polk (another general with a Ft named after him) took columbus,KY, the state legislature decided to back the union.
The border states frankly were pulled both ways and tried hard to make the best of a gakky situation and maintain some level of sovereignty.
Worth noting that the Confederate Army under General Lee did, at one point, enter Maryland, where they received a less than warm welcome... in fact (much to Lees surprise) they were met with rather open hostility by the majority of the population. Bear in mind that this occurred in 1862 when popular opinion was that the CSA had the upper hand in affairs.
Yes, actually, it is. One of the best professors I had in college vehemently stood behind that idea and our entire semester on the civil war was devoted as to why. One of Lincoln's well-known lines is "if I could prevent the civil war by freeing all the slaves, I would. If I could prevent the civil war by freeing none of the slaves, I would." The war was not all about slavery, as many believe. I paraphrased the quote a bit, as I don't remember it 100%, but look it up; never too old to continue learning!
History disagrees with you. When most (if not all) of the declarations of secession declare the issue of slavery as the reason for secession, history disagrees with you. When the President and Vice President of CSA state, very clearly, that the war is a fight over the survival of the institution of slavery, history disagrees with you. When the designer of the second national flag of the CSA (aka the Stainless Banner) writes and editorial saying that the CSA needs a white mans flag as a symbol of racial supremacy and a declaration that the CSA will defend the institution of slavery, history disagrees with you. The war was entirely about slavery. I mean, sure the Union army might have mobilized to preserve the Union rather than to end slavery directly, but it did so because an element of the Union sought to rebel because they wanted to continue to practice slavery. You can make the socio-economic and demographic argument until you're blue in the face, but thats a sideshow to the main event, one which might be used to explain *why* the southern states felt the way they did ABOUT slavery, and why they felt secession was their best course of action, but it doesn't change the fact that the war started, and thus was fought over, the issue of slavery specifically.
timetowaste85 wrote: It was part of the civil war, yes. But the civil war would have happened with or without slavery. I won't deny it even played a large part. But the war would have happened regardless. And Stephens was also, I assume, making that speech in front of tons of plantation owners. You want their support, talk about keeping slavery.
These links are terrible and full of misinformation. You want a real link full of valid first-hand information (I.E. the kind of stuff that you cant really misinterpret)? Try here:
You should read the secession documents for yourself. All of them are like 90% about slavery, 10% about other stuff mostly related to slavery. The idea that the war would have occurred without slavery is also rather absurd, as that was the fundamental difference in lifestyle that lead to friction between the states. You remove slavery from the issue and you're left with a divide between agrarian and industrialized societies, which is not something that would have lead to war (and in fact the demographic issues that eroded southern power at the federal level would have largely been resolved by making blacks full citizens with equal rights and say in government, i.e. a vote).
So, the North, thinking that the South was making money hand-over-fist with their "free" labor, got a bit pissy. Mind you, the North was as racist as the South was at the time, for those slaves who escaped the South and made it to the North often could not find work at all and, if they did, they were paid less than whites for the same work. This would remain true until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s (and remains true to an extent even today in some areas).
Thats some pretty strong revisionism there. Segregation and Jim Crow laws were a Southern issue, not a northern one. In fact, what you see in history is that the treatment of blacks in the US (specifically the norther states) was better before, during and immediately after the Civil War than it was 20-30 years later and going forward. Several northern states even granted blacks (including fugitive slaves) both suffrage and full citizenship, before the war even started. Sadly, Reconstruction threw blacks under the bus and stalled any chance of the advancement of freed slaves in american society in both the North and the South and made this nation even more collectively racist than it was before.
They felt their rights as individual states were being trampled by an overruling federal government and they felt the need to secede. Slavery was part of that argument, but not all of it. Those links I provided are fairly decent reads, and they're educational sources.
And you're still horribly wrong on this point. Again, read the full text of South Carolinas declaration of Secession, if anything they would have rather enjoyed a stronger federal government (so long as it was a federal government that protected slavery).
Any history professor worth their salt will tell you "it was about slavery" (may or may not then go into a more detailed triad following, but half the professors I know are as tired of fielding this nonsense as I am).
In short (because I never learn)
There would be no Civil War without slavery. Slavery and its spread into new territories was the driving economic factor that drove the North and South apart. A US without Slavery is a US so radically different from reality that anything concerning it belongs in fantasy fiction, not history. Hell the entire structure of Congress was driven in part by the existence of Slavery (Slaves totally count as people when it comes to voting in the Federal Government , 3/5s of a person... Even though Slaves have no rights or protections at all...)
The states rights bit was about slavery (and the claim that the South was the one being oppressed is complete hogwash). Yeah. the Federal government was totally trampling on the right's of Southern States. That's why the Federal government was constantly passing laws to support plantation owners, telling northern States they had no choice but to support the South's right to own slaves, and gutting any government policy that harmed cash crop business interests while throwing up barriers to Northern merchants and industrialists. The South trying to pretend they were being oppressed by the government is a rampant hypocrisy. The Democratic party held an absolute stranglehold on Federal politics from 1820-1856, and the South always got what it wanted in the end.
"It was about Slavery" is not a condemnation that the North was in the right and the South in the wrong either. Frankly, both sides had become completely unreasonable as to the issue of slavery and American society. Slavery was going to die anyway. There were people who knew it then, but the rabbling masses of politics by and large overruled them and created an increasingly hostile political landscape that eventually saw the South say "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and the North respond "Aw nah you didn't!"
It was about Slavery. I don't know why people jump through logical hullahoops trying to explain it isn't. For example;
So, both yes and no, slavery was the cause of the war, but not for the reasons most people think. It was a symptom of the underlying causes, but not the central cause, if that makes any sense.
Everything in your post Psienesis, is a short story of why it was about slavery. The economic and political conflict that arouse in the US in the 1850's saw Slavery as a center point of the growing conflict.
This. So much this. SO. MUCH. THIS.
And yet American chattel slavery was really bad. I don't understand why people keep trying to downplay how bad it was. The effects are still being felt today.
Arguably what happened during Reconstruction was more damaging to race relations and the status of blacks within the fabric of American society than slavery itself. Dont get me wrong, slavery was terrible, up there with the Holocaust in terms of the atrocious treatment of fellow human beings. But, what you find is, after the abolition of slavery, freed slaves attempted to integrate into American society and culture, and were for a brief time very successful at it (in some areas more than others), establishing a thriving and rapidly growing middle class of educated freedmen in various areas of the American south. However, the rise of Jim Crow laws, the activities of the KKK, reconciliiatory reconstructionist policies and the withdrawal of federal control over the southern states ended all that pretty quickly. After that, what you find is that the black population was forced to grow around this concept of being 'seperate but equal' (and as we all know, they werent treated as equals by any stretch of the imagination), so instead of trying to enter American society and culture they were forced to develop their own seperate one, one which has at times clashed directly with "white culture" and perpetuated a racial divide to this day. Worse still, while there was always an element of racism in american society, you didnt really see such things as 'hate groups' until after the ACW, even worse is that particular brand of racism and hate became increasingly more pervasive and mainstream throughout american society as a whole, in part through Lost Cause romanticism, but also further political shifts which brought Southern Democrats into prominence in the Federal government once more and gave them a bigger soap box to preach their hate from. The high point (or low point depending on your perspective) would be the election of Woodrow Wilson as president, the first Southerner elected since the ACW and perhaps one of the most racist individuals to lead this country, arguably worse than Jackson.
It’s 50 pages of text, but you can cheat and just read the abstract;
“We show that contemporary differences in political attitudes across counties in the American South in part trace their origins to slavery’s prevalence more than 150 years ago. Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a Republican, oppose affirmative action, and express racial resentment and colder feelings toward blacks. These results cannot be explained by existing theories, including the theory of contemporary racial threat. To explain these results, we offer evidence for a new theory involving the historical persistence of racial attitudes. We argue that, following the Civil War, Southern whites faced political and economic incentives to reinforce existing racist norms and institutions to maintain control over the newly free African-American population. This amplified local differences in racially conservative political attitudes, which in turn have been passed down locally across generations.”
To put it simply – it isn’t about the war but what came afterwards. Wealthy Southern Whites had their economic and social institutions position threatened when they lost the overt, state enforced power of slavery, so to maintain them they reinforced existing racial ideas. They couldn’t own people, but with state and social support they could control them well enough to make sure most of the wealth of the farms stayed in their hands.
In this sense the relevance of the Stars and Bars isn’t in its relation to the confederacy, where it was afterall a battle flag, but in its relation to its adoption by the KKK. The South isn’t so much living in the shadow of the Civil War, but in the shadow of the Reconstruction.
YESSSS, thank you!
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
For a start the Confederates for the most part fought honourably, it was the Union lot, particularly Grants march that caused massive deliberate damage to civilians infrastructure.
Shelton Laurel Massacre.
Centralia Massacre.
Lawrence Massacre.
Fort Pillow.
Camp Sumter/Andersonville.
Poison Spring.
The Battle of the Crater.
Simpsonville.
Gettysburg & Maryland Campaigns slave raids
etc.
They conducted themselves no more or less honorably than the Union did. Also, I believe its Shermans March that you're looking for.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Indeed. The Battle for the Crater (and execution of prisoners after) and the execution of black prisoners and Forrest are just two examples.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This is also why countries like England and France were circling like buzzards, waiting to see how things would shake up.
Thats kind of historically inaccurate. All the European nations took interest in the ACW, because it was being fought in a very different manner from the most recent European wars. Slavery was politically repulsive to both England and France, and public opinion in both tended to favor the Union (although the political elite tended to be more favorable to the CSA). In regards to cotton, the war did cause a brief cotton famine that effected the textile industry in both countries, but they had found alternative sources for the white stuff within a year of the commencement of hostilities and were no longer dependent on american product (which is perhaps part of the reason why the southern economy lagged post-war).
We have many sources that show that both France and England were having debates as to whether they should aid one side or another. Apparently the CSA went so far as to actually ask France for aid. I probably made a bit of a logical jump there... But in my eyes, I think both England and France, while actually "quietly viewing" what was going on, were actually hoping for an opening to regain lost lands. Again, it's just a thought, and I don't particularly have documentation beyond the fact that they were keeping a keen eye on proceedings.
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
I'm Minority that's a bit Republican
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
It is like they have some sort of sympathy for a group whose sole purpose was to keep and own human beings that they saw as being "not really human."
Do people understand that this is the WHOLE POINT of banning the Confederate Flags (of ANYKIND!)?
That in doing so, they become symbols only adopted by bigots and racists (regardless of whether those bigots and racists are aware of their bigotry and racism). If you pick up a KKK Hood, and wear it, the ONLY possible defense is that you had absolutely no idea who the KKK is. Same thing with the Confederate Flag: Willingly picking it up, and waving it around signals a support for racism and bigotry. Defending the flags of the Confederacy is pretty much doing the same thing: announcing to the world racist and bigoted beliefs.
If you are playing a war game, and have need of a Confederate Flag for some miniatures, that is one thing.
But hanging that flag on your wall, or at your door, sends a completely different message.
Manchu wrote: Privilege of being disconnected from the military? Strange turn of phrase ...
What I mean is, the names are "invisible" to many people who know that X base has Y name. As with monuments, schools, roads, and all sorts of other landmarks, most people are unaware of who originally belonged to the name.
We have to be careful to distinguish in this conversation, not just here on Dakka of course but in the current national conversation, whether we are talking about meanings created during the course of this conversation (teetotaling) or meanings that already exist.
The present-day racist meaning of the battle flag is known to virtually all Americans, regardless of how much or little they know about the Civil War itself. The name "Ft Bragg" is nothing like this.
So, by tht standard, if SC switched to the stars and bars which folks did not recognize as a confederate flag, all would be good?
WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
It is like they have some sort of sympathy for a group whose sole purpose was to keep and own human beings that they saw as being "not really human."
Do people understand that this is the WHOLE POINT of banning the Confederate Flags (of ANYKIND!)?
That in doing so, they become symbols only adopted by bigots and racists (regardless of whether those bigots and racists are aware of their bigotry and racism). If you pick up a KKK Hood, and wear it, the ONLY possible defense is that you had absolutely no idea who the KKK is. Same thing with the Confederate Flag: Willingly picking it up, and waving it around signals a support for racism and bigotry. Defending the flags of the Confederacy is pretty much doing the same thing: announcing to the world racist and bigoted beliefs.
If you are playing a war game, and have need of a Confederate Flag for some miniatures, that is one thing.
But hanging that flag on your wall, or at your door, sends a completely different message.
MB
Slow you row there
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/24 22:41:44
skyth wrote: No the greatest trick you try to pull is trying to claim that the Democrats from 50 years ago are anything like modern Democrats.
You also didn't actually address his arguments...
Yes, there's a concept called realignment. Southern Democrats were viciously racist, at a time when much of the south was a one-party state. Things, you know, changed. There were hard conservative Democrats back then, and there were even, GASP, liberal Republicans. The parties slow alignment into the liberal/conservaitve approximations they are now didn't really kick in until Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968. Look at the voting record for the Civil Rights Act: all northern senators, GOP and Dem alike, voted yay, while all Southern senators, voted nay. After Nixon began winning the south, Reagan repeated the trick. (Carter in 76 was an anomaly, due partially to the unpopularity of the Nixon/ford era, and partially to being an evangelical Southern Governer). Keep in mind, southern dems increasingly did not support the national Democratic candidate, with "dixiecrats" actively splitting and campaigning in 1948. Even earlier, FDR knew that being racially progressive could hurt his support in the south. [side bar: even Nixon is an interesting case study, in that while a Republican, he championed diplomacy with China, signed into law environmental protections, and was the one that eventually pulled out of Vietnam, after Johnson escalated it.]
The south may have once been Democratic, but on a national level the cracks began in 48, widened in 68, and by 1980 the south and the national Democratic party weren't really on speaking terms. It took longer to filter down to the State and local levels, but the modern GOP, with it's broadest bases in pro-business, social conservatism, and evangelical christianity is much closer to the platform of Southern Democrats than the modern Democratic party.
Now, the segregationist democrats were, indeed, democrats, so I won't indulge in a "no true scotsman fallacy," but the parties are different now. Issues change, and demographics change, and thus the parties change.
There are some other issues that accreted the split, and the aggregation into the two parties we have now, which occurred from 1980 - 1995, which have to do with the decreasing cost of computation allowing the resolution of policy questions seen, not as a .Democrat/GOP split, but rather as a "Progressive/Conservative" split or division, and with the increasing entrance of Evangelicals into politics in the GOP specifically (I forget the names, but in 1976, the Southern Baptists, and other Evangelicals specifically chose the GOP as the vehicle for their political aspirations.
During the 1980s, the increasing entrance of Evangelicals into the GOP, and the decreasing cost of computation (itself leading to the ability to answer policy questions on social issues, which predominantly turned out to favor Progressive Policy Solutions) led to an increasing polarization between the two parties.
The GOP, prior to 1975, had been the predominant defender of the Sciences and Education (with roughly 60% of academia in the Sciences identifying as Republican in 1960 - 1970). The entry of the Evangelicals into the GOP had the secondary feature of denying a LARGE SWATH of the Sciences (outright rejection of their findings and facts).
Increasingly, this led Academics to support Democrats who were willing to fund what the GOP was no longer willing to fund. The end of the Cold War further accelerated this trend, with previous technological investment that heavily supported the pure sciences in exploring for new solutions to technical problems ending. Academics fled the GOP in MASSIVE NUMBERS through the 1990s as a result.
Together, these culminated in the adoption in 1995 of Newt Gingrich's "Total Political War" strategy to create a permanent Conservative Majority in the government to drive a final wedge between progressives/liberals and the GOP. Increasingly, the GOP began to instal filters in their political machine that filtered out people not seen as "True Conservatives," mixing social conservatism and fiscal conservatism to an uncomfortable degree (making the two currently indistinguishable).
Part of this can be read in the book (or seen in the movie of the same name) Merchants of Doubt, which outlines both fiscal and social conservative's War on Science beginning in the 1960's with the Oil Companies' fight against the removal of lead from Gasoline, following to Tobacco attempting to call into question the danger of their products,following to Evangelicals attacking the very foundations of Science in their war against Evolution and Cosmology (and consequently every science in existence), following to the current denial of Global Warming being Anthropomorphic in origin.
All of these issues are now tied intimately to political identity, which leads people to try to draw past exceptions to the current rule as if they prove a case (see my other post on this issue).
BeAfraid wrote: WHY EXACTLY are people looking for reasons to white-wash this issue, to look for an excuse to retain a symbol of Traitors to our Nation, or to the USA?
I am puzzled by this as well. I am also puzzled by people who have pride in their ancestors' participation in the CSA army. It wasn't long ago that we, as a country, were labeling one another traitors depending on how we ordered our fried potatoes (were they the French variety or full of FREEDOM?) and yet it is perfectly acceptable to want to honor those who took up arms against our nation. Very puzzling indeed.
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
Edit
Also have to remember in the early 90's anyone in the Armed Services were allowed to be in an Extremist/Hate organizations as long as they do not preach it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/24 22:48:05
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
source? you americans like calling all Muslims terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if any American Muslim donated he'd be lumped in with terrorist organizations. But if you're worried that obama got $63,550 in donations and that might influence him, than surely the $65,000 this one group gave should be quite worrying that the GOP is being influenced by racists.
And both sides swear their undying support and loyalty to a foreign power, now isn't that interesting.
on a different note, for those who say the war was not about slavery. Let's hear it from SC who lead the revolt and proclaimed it must be a war against slavery.
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "
And I'm to lazy to find the source, but I'll take his word for it, even the GOP told their party not to take money from the CCC as they are highly racists, but that didn't stop some from taking the racists money.
Okay
Congressional Candidates Receive Money from Islamists
Spoiler:
The Islamist Money in Politics project has identified 11 candidates -- two Republicans and nine Democrats -- who received campaign donations this year from Islamists.
The project concludes that prominent Islamists have given at least $700,000 to federal candidates over the past 15 years, including $85,451 to presidential campaigns.
The figures are probably only a shadow of the true numbers, as the first-of-its-kind project does not yet include state-level campaigns like governorships. It also does not include every Islamist or Islamist organization that has donated.
The compiled data is based on campaign contributions by senior officials with five groups. The five groups included in the database all have Islamist origins and are:
1. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
2. Muslim American Society (MAS), a group that federal prosecutors confirmed was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”
3. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), led by the radical preacher Siraj Wahhaj and included an anti-American militant named Luqman Ameen Abdullah who was killed in a shootout with the FBI.
4. Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA was labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
5. Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, but has taken a stance critical of the Brotherhood and Islamism in recent years.
The Republican candidate with the most Islamist financial support is Rep. Terri Lynn Land, who is running for a Senate seat in Michigan. She was given $2,576 from donors linked to CAIR and MPAC.
RealClearPolitics has Land behind Rep. Gary Peters by an average of 12% in the polls. However, Rep. Peters has also received $11,000 since 2008, with $1,000 coming in 2014 from a CAIR-tied source.
The second Republican is Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, who received $250 from a CAIR-linked donor. He is in a tight race with Independent Greg Orman, who is leading in the polls by only 0.7% on average.
The Democrat with the most Islamist backing is Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota (himself a practicing Muslim), who received $130,692 from sources linked to CAIR, MAS, MANA and ISNA. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana has received $33,911 since 2008, with $6,750 being donated this election cycle. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has received $5,450 since 2008, with $2,000 coming in 2014. He is considered a lock for re-election. Connolly’s opponent has released ads criticizing his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
One ad has audio of Connolly opposing the overthrow of the Brotherhood in Egypt, describing locals concerned about the Islamic Saudi Academy as “bigots,” and arguing for U.S. financial aid to a Palestinian unity government that includes the Hamas terrorist group.
Connolly has even criticized President Obama for not supporting the Muslim Brotherhood enough, earning him the adoration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.
Democratic nominee Bobbie McKenzie of Michigan has received $2,500 this year. The last poll recorded by RealClearPolitics has him behind his opponent by 12%.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has gotten $1,450 since 2012, with $400 arriving this cycle. She is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland received $1,000 this year through the Van Hollen Victory Fund. He was earlier given $250 in 2012. He is considered a lock for re-election.
Rep. Mike Honda of California has received $750 since 2012, including a $500 donation this year. The latest poll shows him locked in a tight race with Ro Khanna, leading only by 2%.
Mike Obermueller of Minnesota has received $600 since 2013, including a $250 donation this year. The most recent poll showed Obermueller behind by 22%.
Islamists also donated to four former candidates who lost their primaries:
Alfonso Hoffman Lopez of Virginia, who received $500.
Mayor Bill Euille of Virginia, who received $250.
Valeria Ann Arkoosh of Pennsylvania who received $250.
Rep. Anesa Kajtazovic of Iowa who received $1,000 this year.
One notable donor in the database is Esam Omeish, who has donated $17,610 to Democratic and Libertarian candidates since 2005. This cycle, he gave $1,000 to Rep. Gerry Connolly.
Omeish is a board member of CAIR-National and president of MAS from 2004 to 2008. In 2000, he was videotaped praising Palestinians who believe “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” In 2004, he praised the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, as “our beloved.”
In 2010, Omeish “liked” a Facebook page for Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the radical spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and is linked to Hamas. Omeish has also defended the Brotherhood and said, “We [MAS] still view them as a good ally.”
Another notable donor is former ICNA President Mohammad Yunus, who has donated $3,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee and Rep. Carson, with the latter receiving $2,500 this year.
Presidential Campaigns
The Islamists in the database have also donated to presidential campaigns over the past 15 years, amounting to over $85,000.
President Barack Obama was easily the most favored candidate for Islamists in the 2012 general election, 2008 general election and 2008 Democratic primary.
Islamists directly donated $14,600 to Obama from 2004 to 2012. In addition, the Obama Victory Fund received from Islamists $39,700 in 2008 and $9,250 in 2011-2012. The total he has received is $63,550.
2012
President Obama received $9,250 from Islamists in the 2012 election cycle.
Republican nominee Mitt Romney was given $1,000 by a CAIR-linked source during the primary. Two of his rivals, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, received $500 and $1,200 from CAIR sources, respectively.
2008
Then-Senator Obama was given approximately $40,000 during the general election campaign.
During the Democratic primary, Obama received about $9,150 before winning the nomination on June 3, 2008, making him the candidate with the most Islamist financial backing.
The database shows both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton receiving $2,000 during the primary from Islamists, although Biden received an additional $250 in 2002. However, Clinton reportedly received another $2,000 from three Islamist sources not included in the database.
During her Senate campaign in 2000, Clinton returned $50,000 in donations from Islamists. In addition, the Clinton Foundation has had organizational links to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and received millions from figures close to the governments Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Iran.
Former Democratic Vice-Presidential Nominee John Edwards received $1,750; Governor Bill Richardson received $1,000 and former Senator Mike Gravel received $250.
2004
The most favored presidential candidate by Islamist donors was Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who received $4,400.
During the general election, Democratic nominee John Kerry received $1,500, while President Bush did not receive any donations from the Islamists included in the database.
The most favored candidate during the Democratic primary was Lyndon LaRouche Jr., who got $1,050. He was followed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich with $1,250; Senators Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman with $1,000 and Senator John Kerry with $250.
2000
In the 2000 cycle, Republican nominee and eventual President George W. Bush was the favored candidate. The Clarion Project has chronicled the close relationship between American Islamists and the Bush campaign and administration.
The Bush campaign returned $1,000 from Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member who was later convicted on terrorism-related charges. The Bush campaign received $3,000 from other Islamist sources in 1999-2000, including $1,000 from Nihad Awad, executive-director of CAIR.
By contrast, Vice President Al Gore received $1,000 from Larry Shaw, a CAIR board member.
Conclusion
As the Islamist Money in Politics project states, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but the main issue here isn’t necessarily dollar amounts. It’s influence.
A donation of a few hundred dollars won’t buy a candidate’s loyalty, but it may give an Islamist access to a candidate or a campaign’s inner circle of staff and advisors. The donation may indicate a current relationship to a candidate’s campaign or open the doors to a relationship that can influence policy.
When the FBI wiretapped a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 (which included two founders of CAIR), Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar was recorded explaining, “Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence …the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage.”
Guess the Democrats get a by
source? you americans like calling all Muslims terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if any American Muslim donated he'd be lumped in with terrorist organizations. But if you're worried that obama got $63,550 in donations and that might influence him, than surely the $65,000 this one group gave should be quite worrying that the GOP is being influenced by racists.
And both sides swear their undying support and loyalty to a foreign power, now isn't that interesting.
When have you ever seen me go down that line eh? I'm an American and I have never gone down that line. Ever. Since I am an American then I must be like that eh?
See what I did there?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
and they were wrong because there is no legal basis for their succession from the Union.
.....
Again, you're making your entire argument on a tu quoque instead of addressing it.
Argument is valid, both secessions were unlawful, one was lawful in retrospect because it succeeded. Simple and logical.
You tried to make it relevant. The Confederate flag is not a matter of "societal pride." I have no guilt over my ancestor's role in the Civil War, but I also don't celebrate their treason.
It can be a matter of local history and shared culture, it would also be mentally healthier to place that as the basepoint unless proven otherwise by an individual's actions. Wheras you quoted and supported calls to prejudicially label those who take pride in Confederate history prior to examining the motives.
What exactly are "Hispanic rights" and how are they lagging behind in the US? Your bring up of the historical treatment of Native Americans our government is whataboutism, just like you dragging the American Revolution into the argument.
Comparisons are a point of logic.
As you need to ask what Hispanic rights are, but probably don't need to ask what African American rights are the point stands. Under law you have equal rights, and have for a long time, but there is an emphasis on application which is still uneven.
Also point returns if a succession is illegal its 'wrong', then the application of right and wrong covers all cases and not individually.The Declaration of Independence document was equally illegal under the laws of the time. The principle difference between Jefferson Davis and George Washington was that one failed the other did not.
As for the wrongness of slavery, sure the Union was ok with unchaining blacks, but were happy to condone land seizures and disenfranchisement of native americans. This is a fact. Morally the two sides were less separated than it therefore appears if you concentrate purely on African American rights alone.
Again as stated earlier this doesn't condemn the Union, despite your claims that I do so, because I made the point that similar moral positions were commonplace in European and post European societies.
To put it simply when you add policies and activities like the bloody conquest of Africa, by the European powers and the rape of the Native Americans etc etc etc the Confederacy had no moral gulf between it and contemporary western nations, despite having heavy infrastructural investment in slavery.
To highlight the evils of slavery while airbrushing out similar human ills of the colonial era is gross revisionism.
This might help you.
Monticello House.
Owned by Thomas Jefferson, where he lives and though of his treaties on liberty and where he kept approx 100 black slaves.
Man or monster?
You have to think of people as men of their times, and history treats Jefferson as a man of liberty.
Secessionism was the issue, slavery was an expedient catalyst.
An unlawful succession. Because of slavery.
Sadly that simple act of level reasoning distant to you. If the hipocrisy of slavery illegalises the Confederates, why didnt it not illegalise Jefferson and those of his time who supported slavery.
Try not to squawk 'tu quoque', rationalise rather than parrot your argument.
Again for the record, I don't concern Jefferson, because I am placing people in their time. He probably didn't consider himself bigoted, and others generally didn't think that of him.
I agree with John Oliver on the topic: "The Confederate flag one of those symbols that should really only be seen on T-shirts, belt buckles, and bumper stickers to help the rest of us identify the worst people in the world.
If you think blanket questioning assumptions of bigotry is a 'failed argument' then it appears liberal progressivism has done a number on you.
First of all, John Oliver is a comedian and his quip about the Confederate flag is what is commonly refereed to as a "joke."
That is referred to as weaponised comedy It's a common ploy.
Comedy takes advantage of something called fools license. Fools license traditionally had a lot of obligations to cover its social advantages, most notably the need for impartiality. Politicised comedy is often a means to make critique, in an imbalanced setting, without the normal safeguards of rational argument and without adequate right of reply.
In civil society if a so called 'joke' encourages bigoted labeling based on superficial evidence it should be censured.
None of these things inspire me to wear the symbol of the failed insurrection against my country and the principles it stood for, which was this:
Noone is asking you to wear the symbol of the Confederacy, I am logically asking you not to label those who do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: on a different note, for those who say the war was not about slavery. Let's hear it from SC who lead the revolt and proclaimed it must be a war against slavery.
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "
Propaganda is not a new art, declarations of causes are just political comments, when it comes to war they are often heavily divorced from truth.
Take the Iraq invasion, the cause was Saddams supposed 'weapons of massed destruction', which those planning the invasion already believed didn't exist. The real reasons were very different.
Likewise a successful succession of the Confederacy would strip the US of half its expansion room. Its however easier to find another excuse. Slavery was such an excuse. If it was the main reason the succession may well have been negotiated or negated by peaceful dialogue.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/25 00:32:52
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
When have you ever seen me go down that line eh? I'm an American and I have never gone down that line. Ever. Since I am an American then I must be like that eh?
See what I did there?
so no source?
but in any case, you asked for someone to Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
Propaganda is not a new art, declarations of causes are just political comments, when it comes to war they are often heavily divorced from truth.
Take the Iraq invasion, the cause was Saddams supposed 'weapons of massed destruction', which those planning the invasion already believed didn't exist. The real reasons were very different.
Likewise a successful succession of the Confederacy would strip the US of half its expansion room. Its however easier to find another excuse. Slavery was such an excuse. If it was the main reason the succession may well have been negotiated or negated by peaceful dialogue.
Oh ok, so all that talk of slavery was just rhetoric to gain the support of all the racists in the south, who liked owning slaves, and to get them motivated to fight a war to keep slavery.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 00:44:25
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman. - The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
jihadin's right... you need to back that up, because it sure as hell looks like you pulled that out where the sun doesn't shine.
Here, in addition to Polonius' post describing some of the "Southern Strategy", the Democrats had to respond.
So what did they do?
In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option... duh.
Enter President Lyndon B Johnson (D), who famously stated "I'll have those novembers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their New Deal programs with racism.
From a purely tactical political perspective, LBJ and his party knew exactly what they were doing, and were extremely effective.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 01:23:52
Orlanth wrote: Late to this discussion, but the idea that the Confederacy was 'evil' is two dimensional at best.
Not if you properly understand how nations can be judged. It’s gibberish to think of a whole people as evil, or to think that people in a nation are more likely than others to take individual evil actions. It is institutions which the nation operates that are evil.
So, for instance, by your understanding you think because the South is deemed therefore it’s armies must fight less honourably, and so proof they didn’t means the South mustn’t have been an evil institution. But that’s nonsense, troops can fight bravely and honourably in defence of a nation that is built around immoral institutions.
As for the black rights thing. You honestly think the union cared. Yes slavery was an issue, but it was the mid 19th century and the issues should be seen though 19th century eyes and not the 21st century moral goggles some wear.
That the North cared to keep the US together as it’s primary cause means nothing as to why the South started the war.
The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.
The American Confederacy was a cause of the time, and efforts to retroactively condemn it are just ignorant revisionism. The only excuse to condemn them at all is on the grounds they failed.
Only if we insist on following a moral understanding with personal judgements. Which would be pointless nonsense. It is quite simple to recognise institutions as unethical or even evil, without having to personally condemn every person who part of those institutions.
19th century western morals were skewed by our standards, but those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today, yet did other very similar things which the peoples of the modern age would find repugnant.
That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.
Yep that sounds about right! I mean I remember having a discussion with one of my professors and one of his compatriots about how the South never truly recovered from the civil war. It was psychological now. It was still part of their identity for a very long time. And some people can't forget.
Yep. People ask why people keep going on about slavery... but people keep going on about the Civil War. That's how people function. History leaves a mark for centuries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's also interesting how the Confederate flag news coverage seems to have quickly overtaken that of the actual shooting, as if flying the Confederate flag is the real root of the problem, rather than a symptom.
That's a really good point. And yeah, banning the flag is treating a symptom, not addressing the legacy of racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
Everytime people talk about politics, they talk about nasty stuff done by Democrats in the 1960s. But that's just lazy tribalism, thinking something done by a party one time must forever be a part of that party.
The Democrats used to be overtly racist, but that changed when progressives won the internal power struggle, resulting in the Civil Rights act which caused many of the racists to leave, and the rest to drift away over time. Spotting an opportunity, Nixon catered to them with his Southern Strategy, and it worked brilliantly delivering the South to the Republicans for the first time since the Civil War.
The legacy of this is that to this day part of the Republican party operates a kind of covert racism. Now, I personally think this legacy is weaker with each election, arguments against welfare tend to be less loaded with welfare queen dog whistles, but we can’t just pretend this isn’t there by talking about how nasty the Democrats were in the 1960s.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/25 04:22:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I find it funny that when it comes to the confederacy, people who would normally be moral absolutists become moral relativists.
That's a really nice way of putting it
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The Victorian age justified colonialism, whether it was the conquest of the West, or South America, Africa, India or Indo-China.
Of course the Victorian age justified colonialism, nations always find some way or another to justify behaviour that is in it’s own economic advantage. That doesn’t mean colonialism was okay.
19th century western morals were skewed by our standards, but those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today, yet did other very similar things which the peoples of the modern age would find repugnant.
That’s a really weird kind of generalisation, sure there are examples of nations standing for inalienable principles, but there’s also plenty of cases where they didn’t. They were inconsistent in their moral convictions, same as we are today.
It's Westphalian principles in a nutshell right there....
In reality, no one had to "justify" Colonialism or Imperialism (it's actually a somewhat hazy line there), because they went into a new area an colonized or subjugated it because if "they" didn't then "the other guy" would. It really is the way that Europe maintained the peace for nearly 100 years: What England does within it's borders, is not the concern of the French, and vice versa.
They weren't really inconsistent in their morals, just, as I said... no one cared all that much how people not of the same country were treated, so long as it was outside the country
Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.
The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.
Ignorance of the past begets horrors of the future.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In reality, no one had to "justify" Colonialism or Imperialism (it's actually a somewhat hazy line there), because they went into a new area an colonized or subjugated it because if "they" didn't then "the other guy" would.
Everyone justifies everything, if only to themselves. No-one thinks of themselves as a bad actor, despite so many people doing so many selfish and horrible things every day. Colonialism was no different, the European powers built elaborate rationalisations for why European rule must be good for the colonised territories. It was the point at which you see a genuine notion of racialism, as opposed to more generalised xenophobia, and it can pretty much all be boiled down to people figuring out a way to morally justify doing the thing that was making them rich.
They weren't really inconsistent in their morals, just, as I said... no one cared all that much how people not of the same country were treated, so long as it was outside the country
Eh, if the point is just about sovereign independence dominating over a notion of universal human rights, then sure, sovereignty was more important then – it’s more complex than an absolute statement, but I really don’t care enough to go in to it.
I was more focusing on this statement, “those standard were nevertheless visibly high. Each nation stood for separate inalienable principles more staunchy than we would today” which is at best a ridiculous caricature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: Don't ban it. The day Free Speech dies is the same day my faith in this nation continuing to be semi-decent dies as well. Exceptions besides destructive libel or screaming in a fire in a theater can't be added, it flies in the face of some of the concepts this nation was founded upon.
The Confederate Flag may be a disgusting symbol of traitors, but that isn't grounds to ban it. For the same reason of protecting free speech, I fully support the public usage of Swastikas or pointy white hats. Not only does it help us identify the asses of society, but it also ensures we remember.
Sorry, is there a genuine effort to make the flag illegal?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/25 05:30:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
My quote button didn't work, was supposed to be quoting Iron from page one.
Although I also have heard of some people talking about banning it, but never in force. But any talk of banning symbols needs to be brought down in regards to America- it goes against our ideals as a nation.
(Or at least the ones we're supposed to hold)
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
If one were to look for the political party supported by 100% of Racists in the USA, it would be the GOP.
TRUE, there MIGHT be racists who support neither political party. But if a racist supports a political party, they are going to look to the GOP.
WHY.
Because the South is predominantly GOP.
Because the GOP supports voter ID restrictions, which are an overt move to disenfranchise minorities.
Because the Conservatives support Police, who have been effectively killing minorities at rates that are thousands of times those of whites for the same type of encounter.
Because of the coded language of "state's rights," which dates back to the Confederacy in the Civil War.
Because of the fear of immigrants (non-whites).
Because of their use of the word "Thug" or "Terrorist" for any non-white violent criminal.
And, it all boils down to this:
That racists choose the GOP as their party of choice means that the racists see something friendly to racists in the GOP's stated policy preferences, or they would not be actively supporting the GOP.
MB
Dude... really? None of that is even remotely right.
Let's simply take South Carolina here... since this is the state we're talking about in this thread.
-The Govenor, Niki Haley is a minority Republican woman.
- The GOP SC Senator is Tim Scott... who's black.
To reiterate, it was the Democratic Governor Fritz Hollins in 1962 who raised this flag over SC capital, and it was a GOP Governor Haley who led the charge to have it removed from Capital grounds in 2015.
There seems to be this fetish some folks want to push that it's the south, that's all racist and where Jim Crowism still lives.
If that's true, that why are blacks migrating in droves to the south?
The greatest trick the Democrats ever pulled was convincing the world that they didn't exist in the South. And like that, poof. The Democrat's racial heritage is gone.
What a great way to point to a few exceptions and try to pretend that they are the rule.
Just because the Plantation had an Uncle Tom living in it, does not mean that the Plantation Owners treated all their slaves to such luxuries, to remain with the Civil War themes, here.
The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.
You cannot pretend that the GOP's policies are not inordinately harsh toward minorities, OR THERE WOULD BE MORE MINORITIES VOTING FOR THE GOP! - Rather than the 1% - 3% of Blacks who vote for them, and the 20-30 odd% of Hispanics who vote for them.
Why is it that people like to bring up exceptions as if they are a rule? Did these people fail statistics? Or do they simply have no idea of what a statistical rule or majority is?
MB
Throw some links to back up the Extreme/Racist organizations that openly contribute to an individual/Party
I'm Minority that's a bit Republican
The Council of Concerned Citizens, just as a Start:
If you are a minority who support the GOP, then you must be pretty self-hating to willfully ignore everything they have done to not just hurt minorities, but to be so overtly attractive to racists.
WHY IS IT that Racists are not just a "little" attracted to the GOP, but IFF there is a party they support, they they support the GOP?
What exactly is it about GOP Policies that racists find so attractive that they not just support the GOP, but SOLELY support the GOP (Or the Libertarian wing of the GOP created when Libertarians realized that a Third Party in the USA was impossible due to Duverger's Law)?
MB
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/25 05:51:23
3000
4000 
