Who were and who are the KKK (SPLIT FROM: Stephen Breyer to retire)

[Copernicus]

Well then, you probably need to demsplain to him the correct language for minorities to use to describe how the Democrats treat them.

Sorry if I was operating under the wrong impression, but which minority does Jason belong to? And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

I think he said he's Native American. If you feel Jason's comparison is hyperbolic and that's grounds for complaint, take it up with him -- I'm just correcting the record in the face of a flood of disinformation from his political opponents as to what he means by what he says.

My apologies. I did not realize that Jason had appointed you his official spokesperson. I'm glad he has someone to tell us what he thinks, since he appears incapable of defending himself adequately. And thank you for telling us that he is in some kind of minority demographic, even though you seem to have contributed to the disinformation on Jason's special status. I guess you point was, that as a member of [insert minority community label], Jason was a reasonable person to speak for all of them.

Klan members used to be Democrats, if they belonged to any mainstream party. Today, they would more likely be Republicans.

Don't take this the wrong way, because on this point you are about the least bad offender here, but...

What the heck is with all you guys' obsession with the bleeding Republicans? Jason didn't say a goddamn word about the Republicans. It's not about the Republicans.

Jason was attacking Democrats as the real racists, so he opened up that can of worms to feast on. We are just "correcting the record in the face of a flood of disinformation from" Jason and his supporters on which of the two parties is more closely associated with racial hate groups such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

 

[ZiprHead]

A lot of minorities feel the Democrats don't respect minorities. When Democrats jump to the conclusion this means they need a lecture about Trump, do you think this shows they're wrong?!?

Is it their minority status that Dems don't respect or the conservative views held by minorities like JH?

Those are the only possibilities that occur to you?

What are the other possibilities? Maybe we can make a list.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is it their minority status that Dems don't respect or the conservative views held by minorities like JH?

Those are the only possibilities that occur to you?

What are the other possibilities? Maybe we can make a list.

Well, there are a lot of possibilities. Just as examples, if an arguer condemns what a speaker says by grabbing onto what a third party says and talking as though the speaker said that, then he's disrespecting the speaker personally even if what he thinks he's disrespecting are the speaker's views. Or if a host picks out a focus group member to talk first because his ethnic group is at the top of the progressive stack, but then when he says something she doesn't like she calls him an Uncle Tom, then she respected his minority status but she disrespected his minority group. Or if you disrespect a man's views because he said something wildly libertarian and you explain your disrespect as disrespecting his conservative views, then you've disrespected his libertarian views even though you erroneously thought you were disrespecting his conservative views.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is it their minority status that Dems don't respect or the conservative views held by minorities like JH?

Those are the only possibilities that occur to you?

What are the other possibilities? Maybe we can make a list.

Well, there are a lot of possibilities. Just as examples, if an arguer condemns what a speaker says by grabbing onto what a third party says and talking as though the speaker said that, then he's disrespecting the speaker personally even if what he thinks he's disrespecting are the speaker's views.

Not what's happening here so not applicable.

Or if a host picks out a focus group member to talk first because his ethnic group is at the top of the progressive stack, but then when he says something she doesn't like she calls him an Uncle Tom, then she respected his minority status but she disrespected his minority group.

Not what's happening here so not applicable.

Or if you disrespect a man's views because he said something wildly libertarian and you explain your disrespect as disrespecting his conservative views, then you've disrespected his libertarian views even though you erroneously thought you were disrespecting his conservative views.

Maybe applicable if you ignore the very thin line between conservative and libertarian views in many cases.

 

[Swammerdami]

Are you seriously under the impression that if the Republicans are worse then that proves the Democrats respect black people? Just because you're obsessed with Republicans does not mean everybody else must be talking about them all the time.

So you think that "Democrats" are homogeneous, that they share with the Republicans the trait of group-think. If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do. Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint.

I asked — and now rephrase — a simple question: Write a very brief essay on the "three silent k's", explaining and defending this peculiar usage. Thanks in advance.

Trausti already had that covered, so why are you asking for it again? "Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?".
...
If you feel that's not a good enough reason to make such an analogy because REPUBLICANS BAD, you'll have to take that up with Jason.

I thought I was discussing with YOU. I'm afraid my interest in opinions varies from Infidel to Infidel. I am sincerely curious how YOU have fallen into this rabbit-hole.

The KKK denied individuality and judged/treated people by their perceived racial group. It is painfully obvious that Jason feels the Democrats still deny individuality and still judge/treat people by their perceived racial group. That is why he makes the "three silent k's" analogy. End of brief essay.

Let's see how much you and I can agree on. Are any of the following incorrect?
(1) It is many of the present-day R's by far, and not the D's, who come closest to the KKK ideology.
(2) Given (1), Jason's signature will seem peculiarly misplaced to most sentient beings.
(3) Especially peculiar is his "No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA." Note that this goes beyond "Same-same" and seems to imply that it is BIDEN specifically who's moving the country toward KKK and/or fascism.

The truth of these statements is so self-evident to me that, yes, if you find any of them incorrect I'll ask again for a brief essay.

Would you like to hear a ridiculous and hyperbolic example?

Yes, I would! But to save you the bother I'll compose my own and use it to frame a question I pose to Mr. Bomb.

In the hypothetical, let us stipulate that there are at least two Republican officials somewhere who respect women's rights. (I've no idea if this is true and won't waste a Google on it, but I assume that GOP apologists will stipulate this since they like to pretend their Party is not totally immersed in authoritarian group-think.)

So in the hypothetical, the D's would still be the pro-Choice Party, but some Rs would also be pro-Choice. Now suppose I'm a D supporter on a "pro-Life" message board. Would it seem peculiar if I tried to push a "Same-same" meme (or even worse as JH does) with the signature line:

Republicans like to kill babies​

Develop an answer to this please; then think again about my objection to JH's peculiar sig.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Democratic Party treats minorities as the property of the Democratic Party. Any minority that dares deviate is treated with ample doses of racist derision. They are attacked personally with vicious racist epithets.

I am not talking about the Democratic Party of yesteryear, but of current year.

I did not mention Republicans in my signature, but after all everyone knows there are only two choices so it has to be the hated other.

In another thread long ago where I described the collective attitude of Democrats, the subject was helping the poor, and I wrote that while the Republicans think the poor need God, the Democrats think the Democrats ARE God. Or at least want the poor to show that degree of gratitude for their "generous help." I'm pointing at a group of self-appointed elites and saying they aren't as elite as they think. They disrespect minorities and the poor saying "you helpless thing, you can't get along without my noble selfless leadership, you should give me gratitude every minute of every day that I am doing this for you since you can't do it for yourself."

 

[Bomb#20]

This is a silly thing to say, given that a lot of those Democrats became Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed and was signed by a Southern Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who even said at the time that the Democrats had just "lost the South". The Republicans saw that as a golden opportunity to pursue their Southern Strategy of attracting the conservative white racist vote in the South, and it worked in tandem with the rise of Alabama Governor Wallace, who helped to bleed votes away from the Democratic candidate in 1970.

I.e., they didn't become Republicans because the Civil Rights Act passed. They became Wallace Democrats because the Civil Rights Act passed; and then they subsequently became Republicans because Wallace got creamed; and Wallace got creamed because of Duverger's Law.

No, it wasn't that simple.

Nothing is ever "that simple". Your description was every bit the oversimplification mine was.

Duverger's law doesn't always work, as Republicans should know from their own origin story.

It doesn't always work, true; but why do you think the Republicans' origin story is an example of this? The Whigs self-destructed; that left an opening for a new party to take over slot number two.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Republicans were the Tory party and the Democrats were the Labor party. The South always had a Tory culture, not a Labor culture. That the South was Democrat in the first place during the period we're discussing is a historical anomaly. The reason a society of Tories were voting for a Labor party is because they cared more about their racism than about their natural political alignment, and the Democrats were more enabling of their extreme racism than the Republicans were. (Little credit to the Republicans for this; the Democrats were more tolerant of extreme racism for the very pragmatic reason that black people were customers and employees to the white business-owning Tory constituency, but competitors to the white working-class Labor constituency.) So once the Labor party belatedly stopped enabling racism, and Duverger's Law forced southern white racists to choose between two national parties that wouldn't go along with what they really wanted, they reverted to their instinctive Toryism and took up voting for the Tory party.

Are you British?

Nope; but I'm also not a believer in American exceptionalism. U.S. history can't be understood without the broader context of overall Anglophone culture.

You don't seem to understand much about the history of American politics and political parties. I notice that you talk about Tories and Labor as if slavery never existed. That was the single biggest issue driving American politics before the Civil War, and segregation + Jim Crow was the rearguard rebellion against racial equality afterwards.

You talk about American history as if it started in the 1840s. Before slavery became the biggest issue driving American politics the biggest issue was Andrew Jackson and his expansion of Presidential power. Before that it was the power struggle between financiers and landowners. Before that, Loyalists vs. Patriots. And so on, into the depths of time. People focus on the here and now. There was no reason for slavery to be a major national political issue until abolitionism grew powerful enough to stop slavery from expanding into new western states.

But the Tory character of southern U.S. culture is ancient. There's a reason so many states are named after Kings and Queens in the south and not in the north. The northern colonies were founded and dominated by Dissenters; the southern colonies were founded and dominated by Anglicans. Perhaps I should have said "Conservative" instead of "Tory", but Americans tend to assume the opposite of "Conservative" is "Liberal", and the Democrats have never been a Liberal party.

Black voters used to mostly be Republicans, but the Democratic Party is a magnet for them now. White blue collar workers used to be Democrats but they shifted to the Republican Party increasingly after 1964.

People vote their economic interests. In much of the 20th century the central political issue was corporations vs unions. Black voters were Republicans because corporations gave them money (because giving black people jobs kept wages down) and unions were withholding money from them (by stopping them from competing for jobs with white union members). When the Democrats and the unions started accepting black voters they were no longer getting a better deal from the Republicans. Likewise, white blue color workers started switching to the Republicans when they perceived the Democrats to care more about taking money from white people to give to black people than about taking money from owners to give to workers.

Jason is making a figurative point about how patronizing and disrespectful of racial minorities like himself the Democratic Party still is. If you can't recognize that that's what he's doing, maybe Jason's literary style just isn't your cup of tea.

Jason makes his intentions clear in his signature, not with his literary style. It is his politics that isn't my "cup of tea", not his literary style.

His signature is his literary style. He likes being provocative. His politics is Libertarian; people with political blinders keep assigning Republican politics to him because he's against the Democrats. He's against the Republicans too; but he has little occasion to talk about that because there aren't a whole lot of Republicans here. If his Libertarian politics isn't your cup of tea, that's a great reason for you to disagree with him, but it's a terrible reason for you to misrepresent him.

So? Swami was offering him as an example of Democrats being pro-civil-rights in that period. They weren't. Democrats of that time by-and-large weren't for child-labor laws because child labor was a violation of children's civil rights, but because children were competitors for their white working class constituency's jobs.

So it is quite irrelevant to Swammerdami's overall argument, even though you were right about Wilson being a poor example to support his point.

But Swammerdami's overall argument utterly misses the point. He keeps harping about Republicans, even though who's and what's a Republican has no bearing on what Jason means by what he says,

Wilson would likely be in the Republican Party if he were running for office today. Not everyone in the Republican Party is a white supremacist, but it will gladly accept anyone into its base for whom that is an important issue.

... as do you.

The Democratic Party is not a comfortable home for white supremacists. I think that we all understand this, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

And that's evidently what's important to you, and to the rest of the leftists participating in this mass self-delusion about what Jason's political views are. Has it occurred to you that the reason you think "white supremacist" is a vitally important category might be because "white" is a vitally important category to you? You'd be less apt to misunderstand Jason if you'd stop projecting, and consider that maybe "white" is not a vitally important category to him. Jason appears to object to supremacists of all descriptions; and he appears to think the Democratic Party is a comfortable home for a wide variety of supremacists. And he appears to have no difficulty seeing a resemblance between the mind of a white supremacist and the mind of a something-else supremacist. If you are incapable of seeing any resemblance whenever one of them is supremacist about white and the other is supremacist about something else, that's your failing, not Jason's.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well then, you probably need to demsplain to him the correct language for minorities to use to describe how the Democrats treat them.

Sorry if I was operating under the wrong impression, but which minority does Jason belong to? And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

I think he said he's Native American. If you feel Jason's comparison is hyperbolic and that's grounds for complaint, take it up with him -- I'm just correcting the record in the face of a flood of disinformation from his political opponents as to what he means by what he says.

My apologies. I did not realize that Jason had appointed you his official spokesperson.

Sarcasm noted. You have a problem with me being so presumptuous as to say what Jason thinks? Curious. Toni said what Jason thinks and you didn't raise any objection to that. Southernhybrid said what Jason thinks and you didn't raise any objection to that. Swami said what Jason thinks and you didn't raise any objection to that. Apparently it's okay for people to speak for another poster provided they're putting him in whichever insulting little box left-wing ideology assigns him to.

I'm glad he has someone to tell us what he thinks, since he appears incapable of defending himself adequately.

He defends himself as he sees fit. I defend him as I see fit. It's a free internet. Jason typically seems to be satisfied with making his case to rational readers; but when I suspect that's going to make the irrational readers walk away with their prejudices reinforced, it sticks in my craw. He may be satisfied with refuting you but I'd kind of like to educate you too.

And thank you for telling us that he is in some kind of minority demographic, even though you seem to have contributed to the disinformation on Jason's special status.

Being a minority isn't a special status; and if you think I'm spreading disinformation you're assuming facts not in evidence.

I guess you point was, that as a member of [insert minority community label], Jason was a reasonable person to speak for all of them.

See, this is why it's a bad idea to uncritically accept person A's impression of person B's arguments when person A is hostile to person B. Even if person A is oneself. Hostility leads to dumb guesses.

What the heck is with all you guys' obsession with the bleeding Republicans? Jason didn't say a goddamn word about the Republicans. It's not about the Republicans.

Jason was attacking Democrats as the real racists, so he opened up that can of worms to feast on.

"the" real racists?!? What, so if there are real racists in one party then that means the racists in the other party magically aren't real? Jason did not imply in any way that Republicans aren't real racists. He did not imply in any way that Republicans are or aren't anything. It's not about the Republicans.

We are just "correcting the record in the face of a flood of disinformation from" Jason and his supporters on which of the two parties is more closely associated with racial hate groups such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

That's an invention. There has been no such flood. There hasn't even been a trickle. Your bent for seeing "The Democrats have property X" and imagining you saw "The Republicans do not have property X" is your own reading comprehension problem -- probably one induced by a contagious parasitic meme rather than by any intrinsic lack of capacity. Take off your ideological blinders and read for content.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you seriously under the impression that if the Republicans are worse then that proves the Democrats respect black people? Just because you're obsessed with Republicans does not mean everybody else must be talking about them all the time.

So you think that "Democrats" are homogeneous, that they share with the Republicans the trait of group-think. If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do. Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint.

You should not tell other people what they think. You have a reading comprehension problem. It leads you to making false damaging statements about others with reckless disregard for the truth.

I asked — and now rephrase — a simple question: Write a very brief essay on the "three silent k's", explaining and defending this peculiar usage. Thanks in advance.

Trausti already had that covered, so why are you asking for it again? "Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?".
...
If you feel that's not a good enough reason to make such an analogy because REPUBLICANS BAD, you'll have to take that up with Jason.

I thought I was discussing with YOU.

What I was discussing with you was your own obviously incorrect inferences about Jason. If you wish to debate Jason's actual views on their merits, first you will need to know what Jason's views are. I can help you with that. Once you understand them you will be in a position to make a substantive argument about their merits. That latter argument, have with someone else. Jason's a Libertarian. I'm not. I have no interest in arguing for Libertarianism.

I'm afraid my interest in opinions varies from Infidel to Infidel.

If you aren't sufficiently interested in Jason's opinion to take the trouble to find out what it is before you badmouth him, you should go find someone else whose opinion interests you and argue about that person's views instead.

I am sincerely curious how YOU have fallen into this rabbit-hole.

You can find that out by reviewing the thread. I saw a prejudiced person repeatedly libel another poster so I scolded her for it. Then one poster after another joined one side or the other, like the opening of WWI.

The KKK denied individuality and judged/treated people by their perceived racial group. It is painfully obvious that Jason feels the Democrats still deny individuality and still judge/treat people by their perceived racial group. That is why he makes the "three silent k's" analogy. End of brief essay.

Let's see how much you and I can agree on. Are any of the following incorrect?
(1) It is many of the present-day R's by far, and not the D's, who come closest to the KKK ideology.

That's not the sort of assertion that can be correct or incorrect. It depends on your metric for closeness. If you perceive black supremacy as being an ideology very much like white supremacy, same game different players, then both parties have many present-day members quite close to the KKK ideology. But if you perceive them as wildly different ideologies on account of white having a high albedo and black having a low albedo, then yes, there are a lot more R's than D's close to KKK ideology. There is no objective measure of "closest to".

(2) Given (1), Jason's signature will seem peculiarly misplaced to most sentient beings.

Most sentient beings are pretty superficial thinkers. If you're arguing that Jason would be well advised to dumb down his rhetoric to a level that most sentient beings can process without thinking too hard, tell it to Jason -- I'm here to correct your reading comprehension errors, not to be an art critic. Contrariwise, if you're arguing that Jason's signature actually is peculiarly misplaced because Vox Populi Vox Dei, take your argument from authority to somebody who finds those impressive.

(3) Especially peculiar is his "No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA." Note that this goes beyond "Same-same" and seems to imply that it is BIDEN specifically who's moving the country toward KKK and/or fascism.

He presumably thinks Biden is moving the country toward KKK and fascism. If you care whether he also thinks Trump is moving the country toward KKK and fascism, you could always try asking him if he thinks that before taking for granted that he doesn't.

That he mentions Biden doing it and doesn't mention Trump doing it, there are many obvious plausible explanations for. (1) Biden is President and Trump's out of office. (2) This is a leftist forum; hardly anyone here thinks well of Trump. Might as well put "The sky is blue" in one's signature as criticize Trump. (3) In Jason's subjective metric for "close to", see above, the respects in which the conditions Biden is moving the country toward are fascist and KKK-like are more important than the respects in which the conditions Trump is moving the country toward are fascist and KKK-like. (4) In Jason's subjective judgment of probabilities, Biden's attempts to move the country toward fascism and KKK conditions are more likely to succeed than Trump's attempts to move the country toward fascism and KKK conditions, and are consequently a matter of greater concern. (5) He's had personal experience with Biden supporters acting fascist and KKK-like toward him; his knowledge of Trump supporters behaving likewise is at second hand and so not as salient in his mind. (6) He doesn't think Trump is KKK-like or fascist.

Would you like to hear a ridiculous and hyperbolic example?

Yes, I would! But to save you the bother I'll compose my own and use it to frame a question I pose to Mr. Bomb.

In the hypothetical, let us stipulate that there are at least two Republican officials somewhere who respect women's rights. (I've no idea if this is true and won't waste a Google on it, but I assume that GOP apologists will stipulate this since they like to pretend their Party is not totally immersed in authoritarian group-think.)

What are you asking me for? Of course the Republicans are totally immersed in authoritarian group-think.

So in the hypothetical, the D's would still be the pro-Choice Party, but some Rs would also be pro-Choice. Now suppose I'm a D supporter on a "pro-Life" message board. Would it seem peculiar if I tried to push a "Same-same" meme (or even worse as JH does) with the signature line:

Republicans like to kill babies​

So, in this analogy, you're saying you're a D supporter; but you're assuming this is analogous to Jason, as though he were the R supporter you like to make believe he is and not the L supporter he actually is. That's assuming your conclusion as a premise.

Also, in this analogy, the Ds are the pro-abortion party and the Rs are the anti-abortion party, and that really reflects the views of most of the membership; but you're implying this is analogous to the R position on the KKK and fascism, as though the circumstance that actual KKK-types and fascists like the R party more than the D party meant the R party is pro-fascism and pro-KKK -- i.e., you're jumping from "fascists are Rs" to "Rs are fascists". That's a bait-and-switch.

If anybody on a real "pro-life" message board said Republicans like to kill babies, the natural interpretation would be that either he's a right-wing extremist who's angry at the Republicans for being too moderate and compromising about their abortion opposition, or else he's pro-abortion and rubbing Republicans' noses in their hypocrisy because they support guns and wars of choice and cutting welfare and so forth. Pushing a "Same-same" meme would not be in the top two.

Develop an answer to this please; then think again about my objection to JH's peculiar sig.

Based on the answer I developed, it would seem you object to JH's peculiar sig because you don't appreciate Democrats' hypocrisy being pointed out.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Based on the answer I developed, it would seem you object to JH's peculiar sig because you don't appreciate Democrats' hypocrisy being pointed out.

Indeed. Moreover I gave a post on this page with clarification, and it seems to be missed by those most irritated by my signature.

If they want to know what I think, perhaps they should look at that post.

Thank you.

P.S. The sky is blue.

 

[Swammerdami]

So you think that "Democrats" are homogeneous, that they share with the Republicans the trait of group-think. If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do. Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint.

You should not tell other people what they think. You have a reading comprehension problem. It leads you to making false damaging statements about others with reckless disregard for the truth.

Are you REALLY unfamiliar with the following VERY common message-board reductio ad absurdem ?

"[sarcastic caricature of a nonsensical claim] Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint."​

If you're sincere that you missed this then it is YOU with the comprehension problem. Can such caricatures be considered rude? Sure! But they're a good way to make a point quickly ... unless the rejoinderer is so pedantic as to pretend to miss the point.

At least I HOPE you're deliberately missing the point out of some sort of pedantry in the quote above. If you REALLY thought that my "If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do" was my honest assessment of your thinking, then I really wonder about you.

If you aren't sufficiently interested in Jason's opinion to take the trouble to find out what it is before you badmouth him, you should go find someone else whose opinion interests you and argue about that person's views instead.

There was a recent thread where Jason mumbled something about Libertarianism. I answered in depth, describing several breeds of libertariansim, and gave examples about how that doctrine has evolved in recent decades. Given the ambiguity of the term I asked Jason to clarify HIS libertarianism. All he had was "words mean what words mean" or some such insipid phrasing. I asked again and got no response. Do you need a link to that dialog?

Given this context I find your comments about my listening to or comprehending Jason to be pathetic.

[blah blah blah.]

Blah blah blah. Blah.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If you aren't sufficiently interested in Jason's opinion to take the trouble to find out what it is before you badmouth him, you should go find someone else whose opinion interests you and argue about that person's views instead.

There was a recent thread where Jason mumbled something about Libertarianism. I answered in depth, describing several breeds of libertariansim, and gave examples about how that doctrine has evolved in recent decades. Given the ambiguity of the term I asked Jason to clarify HIS libertarianism. All he had was "words mean what words mean" or some such insipid phrasing. I asked again and got no response. Do you need a link to that dialog?

You did mention several things, but not several breed of libertarianism. That's why I answered that words mean things.

If you actually want clarification of my sig, which seems to trouble you more than most on this board, look up a little to see my elaboration.

 

[Swammerdami]

There was a recent thread where Jason mumbled something about Libertarianism. I answered in depth, describing several breeds of libertariansim, and gave examples about how that doctrine has evolved in recent decades. Given the ambiguity of the term I asked Jason to clarify HIS libertarianism. All he had was "words mean what words mean" or some such insipid phrasing. I asked again and got no response. Do you need a link to that dialog?

You did mention several things, but not several breed of libertarianism. That's why I answered that words mean things.

Gibberish. If you believe this to be true, will you please link to the relevant post(s)?

 

[Toni]

The Democratic Party treats minorities as the property of the Democratic Party. Any minority that dares deviate is treated with ample doses of racist derision. They are attacked personally with vicious racist epithets.

I am not talking about the Democratic Party of yesteryear, but of current year.

I did not mention Republicans in my signature, but after all everyone knows there are only two choices so it has to be the hated other.

In another thread long ago where I described the collective attitude of Democrats, the subject was helping the poor, and I wrote that while the Republicans think the poor need God, the Democrats think the Democrats ARE God. Or at least want the poor to show that degree of gratitude for their "generous help." I'm pointing at a group of self-appointed elites and saying they aren't as elite as they think. They disrespect minorities and the poor saying "you helpless thing, you can't get along without my noble selfless leadership, you should give me gratitude every minute of every day that I am doing this for you since you can't do it for yourself."

Funny thing. I don’t know anyone except perhaps an extremely mediocre retired high school soccer coach who thinks of themselves as an ‘elite’ anything, much less in general, elite.

 

[laughing dog]

And how is equating the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan in any way realistic today?

Denying individuality and judging/treating people by their perceived racial group?

What does that have to do with Democrats? Specifically?

Are you suggesting that Republicans don't do that? I'm a gay man. Are you suggesting that Republicans are the party of equal treatment for all? Mike Pence tried to get marriage inequality added to the Indiana State Constitution. He acquired millions of dollars and huge amounts of power with this effort. All that wealth and power, then he dumped the effort because voters and businesses threatened to cost him and his conservative Christian Republican buddies ongoing wealth and power.

Pence is the epitome of TeaParty hypocrite.
Tom

ETA ~I'm a Hoosier. Pence was first an Indiana congressman, then Indiana governor for several years. He lives in my town. My opinions about him aren't just stuff I saw on YouTube.~

The Dems went from the party of the working class to the party of race identity politics. That’s pretty evident.

If you think the GOP is not a party of race identity politics, you are sadly mistaken. The difference between the two is the identity of the races.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Democratic Party treats minorities as the property of the Democratic Party. Any minority that dares deviate is treated with ample doses of racist derision. They are attacked personally with vicious racist epithets.

I am not talking about the Democratic Party of yesteryear, but of current year.

I did not mention Republicans in my signature, but after all everyone knows there are only two choices so it has to be the hated other.

In another thread long ago where I described the collective attitude of Democrats, the subject was helping the poor, and I wrote that while the Republicans think the poor need God, the Democrats think the Democrats ARE God. Or at least want the poor to show that degree of gratitude for their "generous help." I'm pointing at a group of self-appointed elites and saying they aren't as elite as they think. They disrespect minorities and the poor saying "you helpless thing, you can't get along without my noble selfless leadership, you should give me gratitude every minute of every day that I am doing this for you since you can't do it for yourself."

Funny thing. I don’t know anyone except perhaps an extremely mediocre retired high school soccer coach who thinks of themselves as an ‘elite’ anything, much less in general, elite.

 

[Copernicus]

That's a great example of how Ami Horowitz structures his propaganda to mislead viewers. Neither California nor New York have voter ID laws of the sort that Republicans are passing in other states. So he queries white students in Berkeley about what they think of "Voter ID laws". This is being asked in the context of laws that are being passed primarily in Republican states that require special types of IDs that people can use to vote, disallowing others. He then goes to NYC to query Black citizens about whether they have IDs or have trouble getting them. He carefully does not mention "voter ID laws", so they don't have the same context in which to frame the question answered by his Berkeley interviews. They also don't know why he is asking them this question or intends to use their answers. And, of course, neither California nor New York even require voter IDs when you vote, if you showed one to get registered to vote. In most cases, voters never have to even show an ID, since their signature is on record. They certainly don't have to get some carefully restricted type of ID to vote that Republican lawmakers knew many black voters would lack or find hard to get.

 

[Ford]

Interesting side note:

So far in this back and forth, nobody has (as far as I can tell due to the ignore function) made the argument that "of course the Democrats are the party of the KKK because Robert Byrd! I mean, there he is hugging Hillary! The Democrats are obviously racists!"

That one usually pops up in internet discussions of who are the "real" racists.

Carry on.

 

[Swammerdami]

I should apologize for continuing this fruitless discussion. BUT Jason and Mr. Bomb have impugned me and I won't let that go unanswered.

There was a recent thread where Jason mumbled something about Libertarianism. I answered in depth, describing several breeds of libertariansim, and gave examples about how that doctrine has evolved in recent decades. Given the ambiguity of the term I asked Jason to clarify HIS libertarianism. All he had was "words mean what words mean" or some such insipid phrasing. I asked again and got no response. Do you need a link to that dialog?

You did mention several things, but not several breed of libertarianism. That's why I answered that words mean things.

Since Jason was unwilling or unable to reference the older thread, I'll summarize parts of it with links.

What Jason repeated over and over and over in that thread was the nonsensical claim that Swammi believes the only difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that L's smoke dope. Despite all the detailed discussion I presented about Libertarian beliefs, he was fixated on the well-known joke I gave at the beginning. As with Mr. Bomb, we can't be quite sure if he seizes on a joke because that's all he can refute, or if he actually doesn't understand that a joke is a joke.

What makes his comment about Republicans particularly stupid is that I NEVER mentioned Republicans! The joke is about "fiscal conservatives."

In that thread I outlined some of the contradictory beliefs that have been espoused in the wild by "libertarians." Libertarian positions on police include (a) police shouldn't exist, (b) police should be for-profit organizations with no links to government, (c) police should be free to torture suspects (though suspects who don't confess and are then acquitted may then sue the torturers).

Similarly, Libertarian positions on money vary all the way from gold-standard nuts to MMT enthusiasts.

Which, if any, of all these breeds does Jason adhere to? He either doesn't know or was unwilling to tell us.

To test Jason's sincerity I started NOT with the outlandish, but with a simple question: one on which sober libertarian thought reversed itself in recent decades:

I called myself a "libertarian" back in the 20th century but do not anymore. Why not? The word no longer means what it used to. I'll demonstrate this with a specific example: The Clean Air Act of 1990. This law developed a "Cap and Trade" program which created a free market for trading rights to pollute! The program does limit pollution, but at the same time uses free market forces with the goal that what pollution does occur, occurs where it makes most economic sense.

@Jason - You're a Libertarian? ... What do you think of Cap'n'Trade?

Jason was unwilling or unable to answer this question. I increased the font-size and reposted. All we ever heard from Jason was repeated whines that Swammi thought Ls smoked dope but that Jason (IIRC) does NOT smoke dope!

Asked to pin down the word "libertarian" Jason seemed to think I should consult a dictionary. I refuted this nonsense with:

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Many libertarians abhor government fiat money — instead gold, silver, bitcoin, beanie babies, ... ANYTHING is better than government-imposed paper money. Yet the very first Google hit on "libertarian economist" is Milton Friedman, the major inspiration for present-day central bank policies, and perhaps the very inventor of "quantitative easing"!

In my list of differing ilks of "libertarian" encountered at the other message board, I forgot one offering: According to one guy, a Libertarian is somehow who wholeheartedly embraces government regulations which are GOOD, but staunchly opposes government regulations which are BAD.

... And in Jason's response we discovered that, although he kept clicking Reply, he never read a single word I wrote except for the joke about smoking dope:

If you look, you will eventually find that words mean things

I think I've shown that "libertarian" is an exception to this rule.

Yes, you "think" you've shown something.

So, since you think that the only difference between Libertarians and Republicans is marijuana, you therefore think that the Republican Party supported gay right as early as 1971. You also think the Republican Party is pro-choice and anti-war.

(And, again, my ONLY mention of "Republican" in that thread was to point out it was a word I hadn't used! )

I've taken the time to summarize the earlier exchange because, frankly, I find it to be a flabbergasting look at "libertarian thought," if that's what this is.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's a great example of how Ami Horowitz structures his propaganda to mislead viewers. Neither California nor New York have voter ID laws of the sort that Republicans are passing in other states. So he queries white students in Berkeley about what they think of "Voter ID laws". This is being asked in the context of laws that are being passed primarily in Republican states that require special types of IDs that people can use to vote, disallowing others. He then goes to NYC to query Black citizens about whether they have IDs or have trouble getting them. He carefully does not mention "voter ID laws", so they don't have the same context in which to frame the question answered by his Berkeley interviews. They also don't know why he is asking them this question or intends to use their answers. And, of course, neither California nor New York even require voter IDs when you vote, if you showed one to get registered to vote. In most cases, voters never have to even show an ID, since their signature is on record. They certainly don't have to get some carefully restricted type of ID to vote that Republican lawmakers knew many black voters would lack or find hard to get.

Not to mention that Horowitz does his video series for Fox News.