The Violent Right

[windwalker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo


not true ?

[Steve James]

It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.

Besides, what's in a name. It's about what you stand for, or against, not what you call yourself. There are lots of Republicans who say that they're rhinos, and are appalled at their party. Robert Mueller, for ex., but there are lots more.

[oragami_itto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo


not true ?

There's a little more to the history than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[windwalker]

There's a little more to the history than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Lets see how much more


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3g7yEB1KsM

[windwalker]

It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.

Besides, what's in a name. It's about what you stand for, or against, not what you call yourself. There are lots of Republicans who say that they're rhinos, and are appalled at their party. Robert Mueller, for ex., but there are lots more.

yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues

Is this statement true?

[LaoDan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo

not true ?

The first five minutes seemed accurate, but the ending is highly debatable. It presupposes that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed significantly from the history that was given earlier in the talk (there is evidence for what some call a switching of stances on many issues related to the two parties). It further gives simplistic one sided statements at the end that could very well be untrue, and asks listeners to base their party support on the very little and weak analysis of the current situation.

Human egos have us thinking that everyone is above average when evaluating themselves [statistically impossible as one half will be below average!], when in reality most individuals are too poorly informed on the numerous subjects that can impact us that we are really incapable of judging what is better or which is correct. I am also no expert, so my opinion is irrelevant, but I do not think that anyone should be swayed by the information presented at the end of the video.

Why do you attribute truth to the information presented at the end of the video?

[oragami_itto]

It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.

Besides, what's in a name. It's about what you stand for, or against, not what you call yourself. There are lots of Republicans who say that they're rhinos, and are appalled at their party. Robert Mueller, for ex., but there are lots more.

yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues

Is this statement true?

Well if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, there's no point in responding to you is there?

[windwalker]

The first five minutes seemed accurate, but the ending is highly debatable.

"seemed" ? its not?. If the ending is debatable, debate it

It presupposes that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed significantly from the history that was given earlier in the talk (there is evidence for what some call a switching of stances on many issues related to the two parties). It further gives simplistic one sided statements at the end that could very well be untrue, and asks listeners to base their party support on the very little and weak analysis of the current situation.

didnt get that from it. felt It presented a rational for what those in one party supported and did historically,
coupled with a rationale for why they continue to do so using the same means updated to today's time

Human egos have us thinking that everyone is above average when evaluating themselves [statistically impossible as one half will be below average!], when in reality most individuals are too poorly informed on the numerous subjects that can impact us that we are really incapable of judging what is better or which is correct. I am also no expert, so my opinion is irrelevant, but I do not think that anyone should be swayed by the information presented at the end of the video.

If ones opinion is irrelevant, why would it matter what anyone thinks about the information presented at the end of the video.

Why do you attribute truth to the information presented at the end of the video?

The end of the video is a summation of the presenters view point establishing a basis of understanding of what is being claimed
is not factually true but is often presented as true by those having a narrative based on it.

The clip was in response to some statements made concerning historical events....

[windwalker]

Well if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, there's no point in responding to you is there?

depends on what your looking for...

the wiki is an opinion outlining certain perspective that some use to support
their viewpoints regarding past and current events.

Its your thread....Titled the violent right, you've made it quite clear as to what is acceptable
and what is not.

My post was in point to something that seemed historically
false that didn't accord with things I've heard said about
it.......Was looking for some other view point or conformation
that what was said was true...or not...

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Holy crap, I leave the country for a few months and come back to this?

Only a moron would equate a black eye with hundreds of murders.

Only a moron would get his history from Prager "University" or Desouza.

While I admire the patience of Steve and Itto, it's not worth the time.

[windwalker]

Holy crap, I leave the country for a few months and come back to this?

Only a moron would equate a black eye with hundreds of murders.

Only a moron would get his history from Prager "University" or Desouza.

While I admire the patience of Steve and Itto, it's not worth the time.

welcome back "moron"

well comrade, can you share the approved history list that one should read
to get the correct history?

[oragami_itto]

Well if you're not going to bother reading what I wrote, there's no point in responding to you is there?

depends on what your looking for...

the wiki is an opinion outlining certain perspective that some use to support
their viewpoints regarding past and current events.

Its your thread....Titled the violent right, you've made it quite clear as to what is acceptable
and what is not.

My post was in point to something that seemed historically
false that didn't accord with things I've heard said about
it.......Was looking for some other view point or conformation
that what was said was true...or not...

I posted two different scholarly articles describing just some of the ways the parties have shifted since the civil war. But here's the nutshell version.

Southern Democrats, who started the KKK, became known as the Dixiecrats, abandoned the Democratic party and became Republicans when northern Democrats started embracing civil rights reform.

This isn't conspiracy theory or "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" it's just history. Basic fucking history that one side of the political aisle keeps trying to deny.

As I mentioned before, if the KKK today had anything to do with Democrats, why do they only show up to right-wing political gatherings? Why do right-wing politicians tacitly accept their support? Why do their goals and aspirations so closely align with the political platform of the Republican party?

And remember, I'm only counting acts of violence clearly tied to the right wind political party explicitly. We could implicitly count all white nationalist violence as right wing, but that would tend to obscure the point in the noise.

[windwalker]

Basic fucking history that one side of the political aisle keeps trying to deny.

As I mentioned before, if the KKK today had anything to do with Democrats, why do they only show up to right-wing political gatherings? Why do right-wing politicians tacitly accept their support? Why do their goals and aspirations so closely align with the political platform of the Republican party?

You do know they also support and endorse candidates on the left.

And remember, I'm only counting acts of violence clearly tied to the right wind political party explicitly. We could implicitly count all white nationalist violence as right wing, but that would tend to obscure the point in the noise.

Got it "right wing" ignore left

sounds like you need a chill pill...

might want to talk with steve

It's very true that the segregationists in the South were all Democrats. But, that just means there's nothing to stop a Democrat from being a racist or a member of the violent "right." Yep, it was Democrats who burned crosses until the 80s. Black Americans voted Republican until FDRoosevelt.

yeniseri wrote:
Remember when many Democrat politicians changed to the Republican Party, en masse! Thought so...the saga continues

can we at least agree that this statement is false?
If its false does the "saga" continue?

[Steve James]

Well, it's easy to put a picture of a KKK guy and a confederate flag together to argue that the Democrats are the real KKK guys and confederate backers. Someone might even be convinced of that. Otoh, the Democrats today are usually associated with being against the KKK, at least; and people would associate Democrats, not Republicans, with wanting to remove statues celebrating confederates. The KKK --and all those groups that support their ideology-- are all on the "right." But, I doubt anyone makes that association.

Besides, let's say that it's true. The Democrats are the real racists. Ok, does that mean that there's agreement that racism is bad? Are Republicans going to stand up against the KKK and so on? I'd bet that most on the "right" would say that Republicans should not. And, that's not to say that all do. We all know for a fact that it's not true, even from msm.

Anyway, the "southern strategy" was brought up earlier. It's simple and it is very recognizable today. Here, Lee Atwater (Nixon's campaign manager) explains it. Note: I don't think that Atwater is necessarily bigoted toward Black people. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is the strategy: in this case, how to get Democrats to vote for (Republican). (Btw, please don't ask me to explain what it is when the guy speaks for himself).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

[LaoDan]

The first five minutes seemed accurate, but the ending is highly debatable.

"seemed" ? its not?. If the ending is debatable, debate it

It presupposes that the Democratic and Republican parties have not changed significantly from the history that was given earlier in the talk (there is evidence for what some call a switching of stances on many issues related to the two parties). It further gives simplistic one sided statements at the end that could very well be untrue, and asks listeners to base their party support on the very little and weak analysis of the current situation.

didnt get that from it. felt It presented a rational for what those in one party supported and did historically,
coupled with a rationale for why they continue to do so using the same means updated to today's time

Human egos have us thinking that everyone is above average when evaluating themselves [statistically impossible as one half will be below average!], when in reality most individuals are too poorly informed on the numerous subjects that can impact us that we are really incapable of judging what is better or which is correct. I am also no expert, so my opinion is irrelevant, but I do not think that anyone should be swayed by the information presented at the end of the video.

If ones opinion is irrelevant, why would it matter what anyone thinks about the information presented at the end of the video.

Why do you attribute truth to the information presented at the end of the video?

The end of the video is a summation of the presenters view point establishing a basis of understanding of what is being claimed
is not factually true but is often presented as true by those having a narrative based on it.

The clip was in response to some statements made concerning historical events....

“Seemed” because I admit that I am not an expert (I am not a historian), and early on I detected the smell of an agenda, and I would have normally turned it off rather than continuing to listen all the way through because I do not trust the “advertising” approach to information dissemination.

You “seem” to be incapable of having objectivity, so there is no point in “debating” it with you. I do not feel the need to spoon feed you information since you “seem” to selectively ignore what does not support your position and latch onto whatever you see as being supportive of your current position. You “seem” to be quite good at finding sources to spoon feed you the diet that you are looking for.

If you cannot detect the differences between the presentation and the “summation” then you may not have the will or the intellectual capability to attempt objectivity.

In my opinion, people should be able to detect problems long before the ending of the video, and should turn it off prior to reaching the end.