His speech was the most Jacksonian since (Founder of the Democrat Party) Andrew Jackson. And I suspect he’s more interested in emancipating slaves than keeping them in shackles. The Democrats always get mad when you threaten to free their slaves.
32 thoughts on “Trump’s Inauguration”
Comments are closed.
Does this mean we’ll have a financial panic right after he leaves office?
Yawn. Remember that the GOP targeted and claimed all the southern racists after the Dems embraced Civil Rights in the 60s. Keep telling yourself whatever makes you sleep better at night though, and don’t forget to bring up Strom Thurmond because of course.
Remember that the GOP targeted and claimed all the southern racists after the Dems embraced Civil Rights in the 60s.
No, I missed that.
don’t forget to bring up Strom Thurmond because of course.
He was one of the few to actually change parties, so of course, out of your racist desperation, he’s the one you bring up.
The Dems didn’t embrace civil rights in the 60s. Not at all. Bull Connor and George Wallace were Democrats. And you’re a liar.
Nope. Look at Dinesh D’souza’s map in his documentary of the Democrat Party.
Right after they voted for it 80/20 and the Democrats voted for it 60/40?
No, I missed that.
You should read more. Google ‘southern strategy’.
Everyone knows about that conspiracy theory. Its where Democrats scapegoat innocent people for the historical sins of the Democrat party.
Instead of just writing down what sounds like “alternate facts” to people who don’t already agree with you, why don’t you make an actual argument? Take on the Southern Strategy article – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy – and show why it is wrong. Explain why the RNC apologized to the NAACP for the Southern Strategy. Explain why Lee Atwater articulated the Southern Strategy in such detail:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 . . . and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Make your case!
I routinely shred the “Southern Strategy” myth. It didn’t work. With only three exceptions, none of the Southern Democrats switched parties. They didn’t even get voted out of office. I’ve traced the career of every single one of them. The ones who did get voted out of office were replaced with other Democrats. Some Southern Democrats, former segregationists, didn’t leave office until Obama was President.
When Nikki Halley took down the Confederate flag over South Carolina’s state house, none of the mainstream media outlets would say who put it up. That’s because the answer to that question, Fritz Hollings, still had a big ‘D’ after his name and didn’t leave the Senate until 2005. Now he writes for HuffPo.
Republicans didn’t even make a dent in the Democrat’s complete lock on the South until 1994, with Newt Gingrich, and all he did was crack open the door. Republicans didn’t become competitive in the South until George W Bush was President, and they didn’t lock it down until Obama was President.
For three decades after the Civil Rights era, Democrats retained control of the South. The old hard-core Democrat segregationists didn’t switch parties, they went to their graves voting Democrat, without making an apology and without the Democrat party asking them for one.
Democrats didn’t even claim that Southern Democrats switched parties until the Clinton Administration, when they needed to explain how Newt got control of the House (through flipping a few of sea of Democrat Southern seats). Then the progressives took off and ran with it, gradually “othering” all the blue dog Democrats until they disappeared.
George, your comment reflects the power of incumbency (including the power of pork) in Congress, but the wikipedia article is about the Southern Strategy in presidential races, where term limits apply.
Bob, if the segregationists switched to voting for Republicans, as the myth requires, they wouldn’t have kept voting for Democrats in the House and Senate, now would they. The also wouldn’t have voted almost unanimously for Carter (only Virginia went for Ford), and half the South wouldn’t have gone for Clinton..
Look at Dinesh D’souza’s map in his documentary of the Democrat Party.
Instead of just writing down what sounds like “alternate facts”
I guess Democrat’s fake but true ‘narrative’ is the proper way to view reality. You guys have engaged in decades of mythology in the service of narrative to support your racial stereotypes and to scapegoat innocent people.
why don’t you make an actual argument?
Ya, I did that below. Also, wikipedia is horrendous on stuff like this but especially this particular issue. The Southern Strategy conspiracy theory arose with a book from two Democrats decades after it allegedly took place.
The voting data shows that it is wrong and that it doesn’t actually lay out the Southern Strategy beyond Democrat’s innuendo, conspiracy narrative, and geocentric bigotry.
You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things
No intent. No overt racism. Just long held policy beliefs. If some of that appeals to some racists, you can’t do anything about it. Its like saying that because racists like to have clean water that you can’t have water treatment plants.
and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
He isn’t advocating this to happen. He is showing that he understands the question by repeating and reframing it for the interviewer. As in, “I understand the accusation you are making. Isn’t this what you are saying?”
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.
An outright denial of the accusation. You can’t claim this interview supports your claim when it explicitly denies the accusation. This is the deliberate twisting of words to support a falsehood that racially scapegoats people in the worst possible way. Democrats racially scapegoat people and then blame them for all of society’s problems. This is literal racism and bigotry.
But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
Another direct refutation of the accusation. And he is saying that if racism has got to the point where you have to invent it, then it is becoming much less of a problem in society. Only he was wrong. When people who make their money off of dividing people by race have to make things up to support their existence, the problem of racism and race in society gets worse. We can see this clearly during the last 30 years and especially during the Obama era of creating racial divisions.
Bob-1, just because Democrats want to be against racism, doesn’t mean that the Republicans are for racism. But because Democrats view themselves as fighting against racism, they have to have an other to fight against.
What Republicans actually believe doesn’t matter. Its immaterial. There is nothing that Republicans can do to stop Democrats from attacking them as racist because the whole point is to make the attack regardless of its veracity because Democrats need the other to dehumanize.
If there is no party that is for racism, then Democrats can’t justify their existence as one of fighting racism. Therefore they make the attack regardless and inculcate racist stereotypes and engage in scapegoating entire geographic regions of the country and ethnic groups to retain their narrative.
In order to be a Holy Social Justice Warrior you need Evil Unhumans to fight against. And since unhumans don’t exist, they have to be created.
Bob-1, the thing is, we’ve been through this before with Dave, here and here.
Dave hasn’t added anything new to his argument. Why should wodun have to present an elaborate argument every time Dave resets the debate?
Exactly. Bob (as usual) links to a wiki page and says, “State your case!”. Never mind Bob stating his case.
And LBJ’s southern strategy was to make the blacks dependent on government, simply moving them from one Democrat plantation to another. I don’t know if he actually said “I’ll have those n****rs voting Democrat for 200 years,” but it was certainly his plan.
Yes, he actually said that.
On the bright side, some black activists, even Democrat ones, are starting to rethink his status as a Civil Rights icon. When they read up on him they go “Holy sh*t, that man was a racist’s RACIST!”
Going by Bob-1’s theory that any policy that negatively impacts someone is due to racism, then LBJ is super duper racist because of the damage his policies did.
But racial rhetoric + racial policies + negative outcomes = not racist when it comes to Democrats but racially neutral rhetoric + racially neutral policies = racially neutral beneficial outcomes is really racism when it comes to Republicans.
He was one of the few to actually change parties, so of course, out of your racist desperation, he’s the one you bring up.
No, I brought him up because he’s your go-to guy for “look at the racist Democrat!” But individuals don’t matter here, what’s meaningful is that the racist demographic in the south started voting overwhelmingly Republican after the ‘southern strategy’.
He’s not my go-to guy for racist Democrat. The south was full of them from Andy Jackson through Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Bull Connor.
By the time the south started voting overwhelmingly Republican, the average Southern voter from the Civil Rights era was over 90 years old.
The math doesn’t support the Democrat’s myth, nor do the election results which are freely available on the web, even to progressive liberals who apparently can’t read.
They prefer to stay fact-free.
How about former KKK member Senator Byrd of West Virginia? Or Bill Clinton’s mentor Senator Fullbright who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act along with Al Gore’s father? They never changed party.
Bull Conner, the man who turned the police dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protesters in Birmingham was not just a Democrat. He was a member of the DNC. George “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” Wallace was a Democrat till the day he died. At least he apologized so he could get reelected governor of Alabama in the 1980s. Lester Maddox used to give ax handles to his restaurant customers to beat any black that tried to eat there. He was elected governor of Georgia as a Democrat.
The crazy thing is that Democrats are pushing segregation again. Only this time they are weaponizing minority groups rather than white people.
They never learned that their policies of the past weren’t wrong because they targeted black people but because the policies themselves were wrong regardless of what race they were directed at.
The racist Democrats continued to elect Democrats at all levels of government well into the 1990s.
For a party that likes to think it has changed from their racist and violent past, you sure don’t allow for the possibility that other people can change.
Much like the Obama voters in WI, PA, and MI they magically became racist when they stopped voting for Democrats.
It took over a century for Republicans to make any gains in the south and it wasn’t because Republicans suddenly decided to be racists. Although your continued scapegoating and bigoted views are certainly chasing people away from the Democrat party.
As Democrats continue to pit one race against another, your demographic blocks will turn on each other. Then they will see the same cancer the rest of America does and vote for a party that views all of us as Americans rather than skin colors.
Then they will see the same cancer the rest of America does and vote for a party that views all of us as Americans rather than skin colors
Progressive Democrats have moved way beyond skin tones. Now it’s genitalia (real or imagined) and how you use, or want to use, yours that’s really important.
It only took a couple of years for the Progressive Democrats to go from a judicially imposed victory on “gay marriage” to administratively imposing rules on bathroom use. What would they have gone after next had St.Hillary! won and federal judges had had a chance to confirm the imposition of “transsexual rights” on us?
Raoul,
I noticed this too. I don’t remember the time interval, but I know it was very, very short. Almost immediately after the SC ruling on gay marriage we were hit with a barrage on trans rights and Caitlin Jenner (FKA Bruce) on every rag in the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was less than a month from the ruling to Caitlin.
It was all planned.
The racial and gender grievance hierarchy is bats*** crazy and we can tell by how many Democrats feel the need to lie about their race and gender in order to gain social and political status. It has led to a lot of strife in their party that doesn’t get examined by the media.
The Dems still embrace slavery, or at least serfdom. (Not too much difference if the gun is still pointing at your head.) Only old-time “Massa” has been replaced by Big Brother, and the Plantation has gotten an upgrade. That makes it okay with the State-f*ckers, including the ones who post here.
Bob,
If you really want to see the difference between democrats and republicans, look no further than the 2008/2012 victory vs the 2016 victory.
Who behaved civilly? Who behaved like petulant children?
Here’s a link Bob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol7OMGBDMao