The Democratic party desperately wants Trump to be the nominee

[The Barbarian]

For every Idaho wannabe you have a Weather Underground wannabe.

Maybe so. I think they prefer "antifa" now. And of course, the Weather Underground was a real, organized group, not just a bunch of far-left thugs, "expressing themselves" by destroying property and blocking traffic. It seems the quality of left-wing terrorists has slipped significantly since the 1960s:

Right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study​

Trump frequently accuses the far-left of inciting violence, yet right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study

Counter-terrorism expert Seth Jones, who helped create the dataset, told The Guardian: "Left-wing violence has not been a major terrorism threat."

www.businessinsider.com

Maybe not for lack of trying. Antifa seems to have become to terrorism what the Russian army is to modern warfare.

The political violence in my city has been from the Left. I think the probabilities are close to even nationally but leftward where I am and leftward in most big cities.

Fortunately, they keep statistics on that kind of thing.

From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists. In other words, most terrorist attacks in the United States, and most deaths from terrorist attacks, are caused by white extremists.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-terrorists-2018-were-almost-all-right-wing/581284/

 

[Solo81]

Mostly after the Civil Rights law was signed by President Johnson. He said that the democrats would lose the South for a generation. Nixon made sure it was longer...

In truth, it was both. Phillips’s projection was grounded in his assessment of recent Republican strategies. At the same time, he asserted that his analysis offered the best hope for the party’s future: pitting racial and ethnic groups against one another and capitalizing politically on the competitions and resentments that followed. “The whole secret of politics,” he told the journalist Garry Wills during the 1968 presidential campaign, is “knowing who hates who.”

That year, the GOP had convincing reasons for following Phillips’s lead. The segregationist Governor George Wallace made a strong showing in the South and elsewhere with a shoestring campaign as an independent, demonstrating that opposition to integration played well with some working- and middle-class white voters. Phillips saw the potential: If Republicans exploited tensions over civil rights, he argued, they could attract white voters in traditionally Democratic southern states, as well as in the Midwest and West. And if Republicans won those voters, they’d win the mantle of power too.

Fifty years later, it’s tempting to draw a straight line from The Emerging Republican Majority to the Republican Party today. The GOP has come to dominate every part of the Sun Belt, just as Phillips predicted, and President Donald Trump has mobilized the politics of division in a way no modern president has before. “Objects in the mirror really are closer than they appear,” Louis Menand wrote in The New Yorker last year. “It’s not that far from Wallace to Trump.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/emerging-republican-majority/595504/

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [liberal Republican Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Nixon Advisor Kevin Phillips

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

I'm sure that's lovely/intelligent/insightful/et cetera.
Have you any original thought to share? I didn't reply to pdf or the atlantic tyvm.

 

[BPPLEE]

Mostly after the Civil Rights law was signed by President Johnson. He said that the democrats would lose the South for a generation. Nixon made sure it was longer...

In truth, it was both. Phillips’s projection was grounded in his assessment of recent Republican strategies. At the same time, he asserted that his analysis offered the best hope for the party’s future: pitting racial and ethnic groups against one another and capitalizing politically on the competitions and resentments that followed. “The whole secret of politics,” he told the journalist Garry Wills during the 1968 presidential campaign, is “knowing who hates who.”

That year, the GOP had convincing reasons for following Phillips’s lead. The segregationist Governor George Wallace made a strong showing in the South and elsewhere with a shoestring campaign as an independent, demonstrating that opposition to integration played well with some working- and middle-class white voters. Phillips saw the potential: If Republicans exploited tensions over civil rights, he argued, they could attract white voters in traditionally Democratic southern states, as well as in the Midwest and West. And if Republicans won those voters, they’d win the mantle of power too.

Fifty years later, it’s tempting to draw a straight line from The Emerging Republican Majority to the Republican Party today. The GOP has come to dominate every part of the Sun Belt, just as Phillips predicted, and President Donald Trump has mobilized the politics of division in a way no modern president has before. “Objects in the mirror really are closer than they appear,” Louis Menand wrote in The New Yorker last year. “It’s not that far from Wallace to Trump.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/emerging-republican-majority/595504/

All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [liberal Republican Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
Nixon Advisor Kevin Phillips

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

George Wallace was a Democrat and got the support of black leaders (and black voters) when he ran and won in 1982. All you needed was a D next to your name but that’s beginning to change. Interesting quote from Phillips, I can’t post what LBJ said about black voters.
edit, I can post this quote from LBJ
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.

 

[The Barbarian]

George Wallace was a Democrat and got the support of black leaders (and black voters) when he ran and won in 1982

At that time, he abandoned his third party segregationist campaigns, and had apologized to black voters for his past behavior.

Yes, that George Wallace — 45th governor of Alabama, known as the man who during his 1963 inaugural address said, “Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever.”
The man who the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once called the “most dangerous racist in America.”
George Wallace was the embodiment of resistance to the civil rights movement.
But George Wallace is also the man who in 1982, ran for governor for a fourth and final term and won . . . 90 percent of the black vote.
...
Shirley Chisholm had the courage to believe that even George Wallace could change. She had faith in him. And there would be others who followed. In 1972, Shirley Chisholm planted a seed of new beginnings in my father’s heart. A chance to make it right. An opportunity for a better byway for the seven-year journey he would take from there to this very church.
On a Sunday in 1979, Daddy’s arrival to this church was unannounced and unexpected. But for an attendant rolling his wheelchair to the front of this sanctuary, he was alone. What the congregation must have thought when he said, “I’ve learned what suffering means in a way that was impossible. I think I can understand something of the pain that black people have come to endure. I know I contributed to that pain and I can only ask for your forgiveness.” As he was leaving the church, the congregation began singing “Amazing Grace.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/16/changed-minds-reconciliation-voices-movement-episode/

 

[The Barbarian]

I can’t post what LBJ said about black voters.

I know what the rumor was, but so far as I know, no one can document it. Have you found something that does?

 

[BPPLEE]

At that time, he abandoned his third party segregationist campaigns, and had apologized to black voters for his past behavior.

Yes, that George Wallace — 45th governor of Alabama, known as the man who during his 1963 inaugural address said, “Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow. And segregation forever.”
The man who the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once called the “most dangerous racist in America.”
George Wallace was the embodiment of resistance to the civil rights movement.
But George Wallace is also the man who in 1982, ran for governor for a fourth and final term and won . . . 90 percent of the black vote.
...
Shirley Chisholm had the courage to believe that even George Wallace could change. She had faith in him. And there would be others who followed. In 1972, Shirley Chisholm planted a seed of new beginnings in my father’s heart. A chance to make it right. An opportunity for a better byway for the seven-year journey he would take from there to this very church.
On a Sunday in 1979, Daddy’s arrival to this church was unannounced and unexpected. But for an attendant rolling his wheelchair to the front of this sanctuary, he was alone. What the congregation must have thought when he said, “I’ve learned what suffering means in a way that was impossible. I think I can understand something of the pain that black people have come to endure. I know I contributed to that pain and I can only ask for your forgiveness.” As he was leaving the church, the congregation began singing “Amazing Grace.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/16/changed-minds-reconciliation-voices-movement-episode/

Very touching. Anyone with a D next to their name would have gotten the votes of all Democrats against Emory Folmar.

 

[The Barbarian]

Have you any original thought to share?

I prefer facts to creativity when speaking of history. Just documenting why "negrophobes" in the South abandoned the democrats for the republican party.

 

[The Barbarian]

Very touching.

I don't think that Wallace ever hated black people. He was a golden gloves boxer as a youth, and once beat up a couple of white guys picking on a black kid. But he lost an early election because his opponent played the race card against black people. Wallace reportedly said "I'll never be out-(n-word)ed again."

In 1958, George Wallace ran against John Patterson in his first gubernatorial race. In that Alabama election, Wallace refused to make race an issue, and he declined the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. This move won Wallace the support of the NAACP. Patterson, on the other hand, embraced Klan support, and he trounced Wallace in the election. In 1962 Wallace, having realized the power of race as a political tool, ran for governor again—this time as a proponent of segregation. He won by a landslide.

George Wallace on segregation, 1964 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

George Wallace on segregation, 1964 | | In 1958, George Wallace ran against John Patterson in his first gubernatorial race. In that Alabama election, Wallace refused to make race an issue, and he declined the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. This move won Wallace the support of the NAACP...

www.gilderlehrman.org

So maybe that made it easier to repent his behavior. For whatever reason, it's commendable.

 

[BPPLEE]

I know what the rumor was, but so far as I know, no one can document it. Have you found something that does?

This quote is attributed to him, the worse one was not confirmed
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.
According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, he also uttered this cynical-sounding statement, which sometimes circulates in tandem with the "voting Democratic" remark: Source Snopes

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you think it was all Republicans setting fires and rioting during the BLM protests in 2020?

My true feelings? I'm reasonably convinced that most of the violence was committed by either people who used the protests to behave badly, and by bad faith actors interested in discrediting the BLM movement.

The riots aren't the reason why people opposed/still oppose BLM; that can be credited to just good old fashioned racism. The riots are just a good pretext to hide behind, because there are no valid reasons which a person of moral conscience would have for opposing BLM. It's not politically correct to just come out and be honest about why people hated Dr. King in the 60's, or why people hate BLM today--it has to be disguised under a pretext of quasi-legitimate outrage. Riots were a popular pretext in the 60's, just as it is today.

But your question to me really doesn't answer my question. And that's because I think objectively speaking, what I said is correct. And we all know it, it's just that for some, in order to ease their conscience, they need to try playing "both-sideism". Which is why people couldn't just come out and say that the Unite the Right rally was a disgusting display of depraved humanity, but instead have to talk about "both sides".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

My true feelings? I'm reasonably convinced that most of the violence was committed by either people who used the protests to behave badly, and by bad faith actors interested in discrediting the BLM movement.

The riots aren't the reason why people opposed/still oppose BLM; that can be credited to just good old fashioned racism. The riots are just a good pretext to hide behind, because there are no valid reasons which a person of moral conscience would have for opposing BLM. It's not politically correct to just come out and be honest about why people hated Dr. King in the 60's, or why people hate BLM today--it has to be disguised under a pretext of quasi-legitimate outrage. Riots were a popular pretext in the 60's, just as it is today.

But your question to me really doesn't answer my question. And that's because I think objectively speaking, what I said is correct. And we all know it, it's just that for some, in order to ease their conscience, they need to try playing "both-sideism". Which is why people couldn't just come out and say that the Unite the Right rally was a disgusting display of depraved humanity, but instead have to talk about "both sides".

-CryptoLutheran

You think that if I am opposed to a group whose stated purpose is to eliminate the traditional family that it must be because of racism?
“Black Lives Matter’s stated mission is to “eradicate white supremacy”—a cause that, on its face, sounds admirable. But a closer look reveals BLM to be a revolutionary movement, rooted in Marxism, that wants to dismantle Western society.”
Tearing down capitalism, therefore, requires breaking up its foundation: the family. The leaders of the main Black Lives Matter organization openly agree.

Black Families Matter

Black Lives Matter’s stated mission is to “eradicate white supremacy”—a cause that, on its face, sounds admirable. But a closer look reveals BLM to be a revolutionary movement, rooted in Marxism, that wants to dismantle Western society.

www.heritage.org

Maybe you should look beyond the catchy name and see what this organization advocates before making a statement like “because there are no valid reasons which a person of moral conscience would have for opposing BLM.”

BLM leader: If change doesn’t happen, then ‘we will burn down this system’

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter said that if the movement fails to achieve meaningful change during nationwide protests over George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police …

nypost.com

Not to mention all the BLM leaders who have been convicted of fraud.

 

[The Barbarian]

These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.

Snopes, your source says that the claim is unproven. So that's where we are now.

 

[BPPLEE]

Snopes, your source says that the claim is unproven. So that's where we are now.

No the quote with the racial slur is unproven. A source is given for this one and if you read the article there are several other instances of LBJ using racial slurs

 

[mindlight]

"How can you believe that the Democratic party wants Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee when they are burying him under political prosecution?"​

The active lawsuits against Donald Trump right now—four indictments consisting of 44 federal charges and 47 state charges, for a total of 91 felonies—are directly related to why Democrats want Trump to be the nominee. Mainstream media will continue publishing inflated poll numbers showing Trump beating Biden in swing states and holding back negative stories until after he wins the Republican nomination. Then the avalanche will start. As Grudem pointed out in his Newsweek op-ed, after winning the nomination there will be month after month of constant bad press revealing embarrassing and damaging new information about Trump (e.g., leaks from legal discovery)—once it's too late for Republicans to replace him. With Trump as the nominee, Democrats are practically assured of winning the general. So, yes, they absolutely want him.

Yes, Americans (and even Democrats) are as tired of Biden as they are of Trump—57% and 56% unfavorable, respectively—but don't think for a minute that Biden will be serving a second term. The polling data that shows Trump leading Biden in key battleground states serve not only to encourage the GOP to make Trump their nominee but also provide the justification for replacing Biden next year, probably before the convention in August (as would impeachment). So, the GOP will be stuck with Trump as their nominee to face a younger, fresher Democrat nominee that independents will like more than Trump, perhaps someone like Gov. Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania who has strong favorability numbers.

How much bad press does the left and their mainstream media have on Ron DeSantis? To figure that out, rewatch his debate with Gov. Gavin Newsom. They have nothing. Because if they did that's where it would have come out, effectively ending his campaign. There is a reason why the mainstream media are showing DeSantis either not moving or going down in polling. Even as they were forced to publicly admit that he basically won the fourth RNC primary debate, coverage of him never improved and his poll numbers didn't move. Now, why is that? Think carefully.

Because they have nothing on him. DeSantis has held public office since 2012, so dirty laundry on him would have come out by now. Let's not forget that after winning the 2012 Republican primary for Florida's 6th congressional district, he went on to defeat the Democratic nominee in the general election—and then reelection in 2014 and 2016. From the very beginning of his political career, he has a solid track record of winning. They seriously cannot afford DeSantis being the nominee. Look what he did to Florida. He turned it from a toss-up state in 2018 to a solidly red state in 2022, when he again won not only an election but also a reelection with the largest gubernatorial victory in that state since 1982.

Democrats can't afford DeSantis turning even more states red. So, they create and spread this narrative that he can't win the nomination. And Republicans—who I thought had learned something about polls from 2016 onwards (i.e., they're wildly inaccurate tools of propaganda) and had learned from the 2020 pandemic and presidential election that the media just absolutely cannot be trusted—now suddenly trust poll numbers and the media who feed it to them? What happened to their psyop radar detection?

Yes, the left and its mainstream and social media want Trump to be the nominee because, through this banana republic lawfare that Grudem aptly described as "a malicious misuse of the courts as weapons against political opponents," they are practically assured of victory—especially if they get a conviction on any of the 91 felony indictments, because then they also get to run their nominee—and it won't be Biden—against a GOP nominee who is a convicted felon.

If DeSantis is the nominee, not only would the Democrats be screwed but he would also set back their globalist agenda in the U.S. almost two decades.

The trap has been obvious for a while now, with the timing of the court cases which could have been done 2 years ago. If they simply wanted Trump gone then he could have been in prison two years ago also for all his various crimes. Haley was the only credible internationalist candidate for the Republicans and it is clear they have rejected her. Also, Republicans will tend to oppose anything that the mainstream media is asserting so they were easy to manipulate on Trump's candidacy.

Biden as a president is not as bad as Biden as an image in the media. He has to win because the Republicans have chosen an isolationist candidate that would break the world as we know it and enable the USA's rivals. The cost is 4 more years of wokeness but will have little economic impact. Neither candidate is addressing America's most important long-term issues of declining social mobility, public debt, and the cost of healthcare.

 

[BPPLEE]

My true feelings? I'm reasonably convinced that most of the violence was committed by either people who used the protests to behave badly, and by bad faith actors interested in discrediting the BLM movement.

The riots aren't the reason why people opposed/still oppose BLM; that can be credited to just good old fashioned racism. The riots are just a good pretext to hide behind, because there are no valid reasons which a person of moral conscience would have for opposing BLM. It's not politically correct to just come out and be honest about why people hated Dr. King in the 60's, or why people hate BLM today--it has to be disguised under a pretext of quasi-legitimate outrage. Riots were a popular pretext in the 60's, just as it is today.

But your question to me really doesn't answer my question. And that's because I think objectively speaking, what I said is correct. And we all know it, it's just that for some, in order to ease their conscience, they need to try playing "both-sideism". Which is why people couldn't just come out and say that the Unite the Right rally was a disgusting display of depraved humanity, but instead have to talk about "both sides".

-CryptoLutheran

Black Lives Matter Activist Who Organized Statue Teardown Jailed for Fraud | National Review

Saleem spent more than £30,000 in BLM charitable donations to fund her lifestyle.

www.nationalreview.com

Self-described BLM leader and 'world's sexiest albino' convicted of fraud, money laundering

An Ohio man who claims to be the "world's sexiest albino" was convicted of fraud for spending donations to BLM on himself.

torontosun.com

Memphis BLM founder Pamela Moses sentenced to 6 years for illegally voting

BLM’s Pamela Moses was ordered to spend six years and one day behind bars Monday for registering to vote despite felony convictions.

nypost.com

Boston BLM Activist and Husband Indicted on Federal Fraud Charges | National Review

Monica Cannon-Grant and Clark Grant allegedly used $185,000 donated to their nonprofit, Violence in Boston, on rent, shopping, hotels, and a vacation trip.

www.nationalreview.com

BLM finances under fire: Only 33% of donations given to charities as execs paid millions

wpde.com

That’s just a few of the results. Google BLM and fraud
Next time you may want to do some research before you give your whole hearted endorsement and call anyone that opposes BLM a racist

 

[The Barbarian]

No the quote with the racial slur is unproven. A source is given for this one and if you read the article there are several other instances of LBJ using racial slurs

I'm surprised that none of them were documented. Well, I guess I'm really not.

 

[The Barbarian]

That’s just a few of the results. Google BLM and fraud

But no arrests for violence or rioting or anything like that? Not even one? That's what we've been showing you. There was violence at some BLM marches. But it was the people opposing BLM who were caught doing it.

I think you just disproved your own claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

The trap has been obvious for a while now, with the timing of the court cases which could have been done 2 years ago. If they simply wanted Trump gone then he could have been in prison two years ago also for all his various crimes.

You're underestimating Trump. Like most grifters, he's got a gift for staying out of jail. As his mind starts to go, he's making more and more mistakes, and that seems to have caught up to him. But when he had all his cognitive faculties he would not have made such mistakes.

 

[BPPLEE]

But no arrests for violence or rioting or anything like that? Not even one? That's what we've been showing you. There was violence at some BLM marches. But it was the people opposing BLM who were caught doing it.

I think you just disproved your own claims.

Nope, I only disproved your claims

Fact check: Thousands of Black Lives Matter protesters were arrested in 2020

Estimates put the cost of protest-related damage in 2020 at about $2 billion. But it's wrong to say protesters didn't face consequences.

www.usatoday.com

Some more serious charges were filed as well, however. The Associated Press reported hundreds were charged with burglary and looting as of June 4, 2020.
A June 22, 2020, article from The Washington Post tallied over 14,000 arrests made since May 27. The Hill reported over 17,000 arrests had been made in the first two weeks of protests.
Burglary and looting are elements of rioting

 

[BPPLEE]

You're underestimating Trump. Like most grifters, he's got a gift for staying out of jail. As his mind starts to go, he's making more and more mistakes, and that seems to have caught up to him. But when he had all his cognitive faculties he would not have made such mistakes.

Yet you agree with him (incorrectly) that Antifa was responsible for most of the rioting, arson and destruction during the 2020 riots