The Daily Trump wins again thread

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

"The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" --KKK recruiter (and later Senator) Robert Byrd

 

The importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative. It was that the people who find things in others' pasts to try and bury them with, these people conveniently excused Byrd's past, saying he left and denounced them, and of course, sided with them politically. And that's not even the most important part, it's that this quote occurred from a speech years after Byrd said, in the media, and in his own autobiographies (which, funny enough, had changing narratives that Elizabeth Warren would be jealous of), that he had repented and changed his ways.

 

In case one might think that was an anomaly, Byrd not only later opposed the Civil Rights Act decades later, and campaigned against it, he viciously went after poor black communities to target them for ending their welfare programs, but when MLK was assassinated, he said, of the black people rioting in response: "If it requires the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, we should put the troublemakers in their places. Looters should be shot on the spot, swiftly and mercilessly."

 

No doubt he eventually realized his wrongs, and Democrats didn't mind his racism until it became too distracting from their national platform, but clearly, history is distorted to fit a narrative. 

 

   Byrd's obituary describes him as a conservative West Virginia Democrat. To my earlier point I guess, I don't think there is any debate that he was a conservative and obviously he was a Democrat. That's just the way things were. If he was just starting out today, he might be Republican, as most conservatives tend to be. Getting past the label of Democrat and Republican, perhaps it's better to look at the ideology. Byrd's approach to many of these issues is not defensible in this day and age, regardless of his affiliation.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

59 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Byrd's obituary describes him as a conservative West Virginia Democrat. To my earlier point I guess, I don't think there is any debate that he was a conservative and obviously he was a Democrat. That's just the way things were. If he was just starting out today, he might be Republican, as most conservatives tend to be. Getting past the label of Democrat and Republican, perhaps it's better to look at the ideology. Byrd's approach to many of these issues is not defensible in this day and age, regardless of his affiliation.  

- "Getting past the label"

- "If he was just starting out today, he might be Republican"

- "His approach is not defensible in this day and age, regardless of affiliation"

 

 

Of course, my post has pretty much zero to do with "party labels", but an interesting argument. I would suggest re-reading it.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

- "Getting past the label"

- "If he was just starting out today, he might be Republican"

- "His approach is not defensible in this day and age, regardless of affiliation"

 

 

 

Of course, my post has pretty much zero to do with "party labels", but an interesting argument. I would suggest re-reading it.

 

  LOL. Good one!  

  

[luckytxn 2,264]

In the south many decades ago one had to be a Democratic politician in order to win any office. Any Republican that made any waves would be lynched no matter the race. Yes many whites were killed and not just blacks. The brutality was brutal in the rural south and the Klan was responsible for this. When at the end of the 70's and the early 80's conservatives could safely leave the party and become Republican. So in this vein yes Democrats did leave and joined the Republicans but NOT the Klan. They would have never had anything to do with the party of Lincoln. It was not because they wanted to join a racist party and continue Jim Crow for sure. There are different reason Blacks moved into the Democratic party and again it was the reason before that if one wanted to have any relevance in the south politically they had to be Democrat.

 

Now we called the Klan leaders and rank and file Jim Crow acolytes just created a new type of plantation that is still around today but evolving.  The rank and file and leaders of the Klan were known as dinosaurs that would die out and it was expected that the minorities would eventually move up and into the  spots held by them and are doing so. They can do so by keeping the slaves on the plantations though and if they leave they need to be replaced by someone and guess who they are going for?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

24 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  LOL. Good one!  

  

I know right?  I especially liked this part:

 

"The importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative. It was that the people who find things in others' pasts to try and bury them with, these people conveniently excused Byrd's past, saying he left and denounced them, and of course, sided with them politically"

 

Really emphasizes the party label and its importance.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  LOL. Good one!  

  

He did pretty much one-up you there.  How's that crow taste? (At least it's Thanksgiving crow!). Happy Traitor's day.

Edited November 29, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

21 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

He did pretty much one-up you there.  How's that crow taste? (At least it's Thanksgiving crow!). Happy Traitor's day.

I think the Traitors day thing was July 4th 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I think the Traitors day thing was July 4th 

Oh, sorry.  (Though technically, the US army did pretty much act as traitors to the Indians.)

 

Happy Genocide day then!!

Edited November 29, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Steeleballz 7,550]

41 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

He did pretty much one-up you there.  How's that crow taste? (At least it's Thanksgiving crow!). Happy Traitor's day.

 

    I ain't biting Dave. Save it for someone else.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

52 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I ain't biting Dave. Save it for someone else.

There's nothing to bite.  You mentioned parties a LOT more than he did. Go back and count the times in each of your posts.   

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

There's nothing to bite.  You mentioned parties a LOT more than he did. Go back and count the times in each of your posts.   

 

   Who did I label though? I didn't introduce Byrd or his party or his history into the discussion. I intentionally didn't mention any names. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

36 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Who did I label though? I didn't introduce Byrd or his party or his history into the discussion. I intentionally didn't mention any names. 

You claimed he would be a Republican today, despite saying not to use labels, and that his position is indefensible today regardless of affiliation, which means he wouldn't be a Republican, he wouldn't be welcome in that party. Erroneous thinking, and (further on error) incorrectly projecting your party labeling upon my post. And I'm not even sure to what, because I wasn't even discussing "labels", even started my argument with "importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative. It was that the people who find things in others' pasts to try and bury them with, these people conveniently excused Byrd's past, saying he left and denounced them, and of course, sided with them politically". The issue I specifically targeted was what the discussion on the last page was about, which is this alteration/whitewashing/distorting of history, whether people or events, which is why I deliberately said "the importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative". That is me saying its not important. To which you responded afterwards -> "LOL good one", while putting in bold where I reiterated that my post "has pretty much zero to do with party labels", which was true.

Edited November 29, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You claimed he would be a Republican today, despite saying not to use labels, and that his position is indefensible today regardless of affiliation, which means he wouldn't be a Republican, he wouldn't be welcome in that party. Erroneous thinking, and (further on error) incorrectly projecting your party labeling upon my post. And I'm not even sure to what, because I wasn't even discussing "labels", even started my argument with "importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative. It was that the people who find things in others' pasts to try and bury them with, these people conveniently excused Byrd's past, saying he left and denounced them, and of course, sided with them politically". The issue I specifically targeted was what the discussion on the last page was about, which is this alteration/whitewashing/distorting of history, whether people or events, which is why I deliberately said "the importance of this isn't merely that he was a Democrat and KKK operative". That is me saying its not important. To which you responded afterwards -> "LOL good one", while putting in bold where I reiterated that my post "has pretty much zero to do with party labels", which was true.

 

  No, I said he might be a Republican. Stop misquoting me.

 

  By the way I don't actually have a political affiliation. I have never voted Democrat. So maybe you should stop labeling me. Since you don't do that, right?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  No, I said he might be a Republican. Stop misquoting me.

 

  By the way I don't actually have a political affiliation. I have never voted Democrat. So maybe you should stop labeling me. Since you don't do that, right?

1) What label did I give you?

 

2) You used a label (and repeatedly used them) to describe someone (using "might" doesn't make it not a label), while simultaneously saying not to use labels, and simultaneously saying his approach is not defensible in this day and age regardless of affiliation (Republican is an obvious affiliation).

 

Giving me a story about your political affiliation is funny, and a huge red herring, because it's irrelevant.. has nothing to do with my argument at all. I'm not discussing your political affiliation, I'm discussing your arguments. You responded to my post with virtually zero context relevant to what I said:

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Byrd's obituary describes him as a conservative West Virginia Democrat. To my earlier point I guess, I don't think there is any debate that he was a conservative and obviously he was a Democrat. That's just the way things were. If he was just starting out today, he might be Republican, as most conservatives tend to be. Getting past the label of Democrat and Republican, perhaps it's better to look at the ideology. Byrd's approach to many of these issues is not defensible in this day and age, regardless of his affiliation.  

This is you focusing on Byrd's party identity as a Democrat (a label), along with "conservative" (a label), repeating these labels over and over and discussing "ideology" when ideology had nothing to do with my post. The point, yet again, was historical alteration/distorting/whatever else, hence the examples of this pertaining to Byrd.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  No, I said he might be a Republican. Stop misquoting me.

 

  By the way I don't actually have a political affiliation. I have never voted Democrat. So maybe you should stop labeling me. Since you don't do that, right?

"Might be a republican, as most conservatives tend to be."

 

So you MEANT he would be a democrat?  Me thinks not.  Backhoe time.