Biden Triggers MAGA Comparing Them to Southern Segregationists

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

I gave the answer above, because the media and the 'civility' Democrats would join in with the Republicans and attack the Democrat/liberal. As I also said above, I think that finally the Democrats have learned to ignore the media as the Republicans learned years ago and the 'civility' Democrats have also realized that they have no reason to show respect to a party that votes for a demented rapist grifter for President.

[HisGrace]

The overarching point is right, but those are the wrong examples. Affirmative action statistically hurts Asians worse than white people and also Hispanics to a lesser extent. I fail to see how not using racial preferences makes you racist. Then DEI is BS corporate window dressing to get good PR that accomplishes nothing.

He's said worse before when he said the GOP is worse than segregationists and his explanation was "at least they believed in democracy"

"worse"?

I think the issue there is that he indirectly implies southern segregationists were "pro democracy"

[GP270watch]

Trump Posts Video Online With Newspaper Headline About ‘Unified Reich’

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Whilhoit's Law:  “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

The core of Republican identity revolves around a sort of inverse of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you wish, confident that they may not do the same unto you."

For a Republican, a fair fight is one where he gets to hit you and you don't get to hit back - and he gets extremely upset if you do hit back. (This is why they are so sympathetic to various sorts of abusers. They tend to see as a "victim" anyone who abused others and then faced consequences for their abuse.)

[Obama24]

He's not entirely wrong. Although I would say they're more the ideological descendants of a certain German party from the mid 20th century rather than Southern Segregationists.

[MasterJedi]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

It’s because modern American conservatism is about being a victim. Not a real victim, just a perceived victim. Which is so weird seeing as how they’re the ones who generally have the power but they do sure have epic meltdowns when they’re the ones talking about how sensitive everyone is.

[MillennialModerate]

I’m confused - where is the incorrect statement? He’s 100% right

[Fight for Trump]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Whilhoit's Law:  “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

The core of Republican identity revolves around a sort of inverse of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you wish, confident that they may not do the same unto you."

For a Republican, a fair fight is one where he gets to hit you and you don't get to hit back - and he gets extremely upset if you do hit back. (This is why they are so sympathetic to various sorts of abusers. They tend to see as a "victim" anyone who abused others and then faced consequences for their abuse.)

This is f**king unhinged even by your standards.

[HisGrace]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Whilhoit's Law:  “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

The core of Republican identity revolves around a sort of inverse of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you wish, confident that they may not do the same unto you."

For a Republican, a fair fight is one where he gets to hit you and you don't get to hit back - and he gets extremely upset if you do hit back. (This is why they are so sympathetic to various sorts of abusers. They tend to see as a "victim" anyone who abused others and then faced consequences for their abuse.)

This is so much projection, the far left is exactly like this too.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Whilhoit's Law:  “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

The core of Republican identity revolves around a sort of inverse of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you wish, confident that they may not do the same unto you."

For a Republican, a fair fight is one where he gets to hit you and you don't get to hit back - and he gets extremely upset if you do hit back. (This is why they are so sympathetic to various sorts of abusers. They tend to see as a "victim" anyone who abused others and then faced consequences for their abuse.)

This is so much projection, the far left is exactly like this too.

Maybe but the far left is a small proportion of the Democratic Party, whereas this is the mainstream for the Republican Party. When the far left Democrats nominate a rapist demented grifter for President as the Republican Party has now done three times, then you can get back to us.

[HisGrace]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Whilhoit's Law:  “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

The core of Republican identity revolves around a sort of inverse of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you wish, confident that they may not do the same unto you."

For a Republican, a fair fight is one where he gets to hit you and you don't get to hit back - and he gets extremely upset if you do hit back. (This is why they are so sympathetic to various sorts of abusers. They tend to see as a "victim" anyone who abused others and then faced consequences for their abuse.)

This is so much projection, the far left is exactly like this too.

Maybe but the far left is a small proportion of the Democratic Party, whereas this is the mainstream for the Republican Party. When the far left Democrats nominate a rapist demented grifter for President as the Republican Party has now done three times, then you can get back to us.

I mean I'm voting for Biden so you don't have to sell me on that, I know he's not like that. Although ideally you'd shut these people down before they got a presidential candidate which is the lesson the mainstream Republicans didn't learn.

[Obama24]

I’m confused - where is the incorrect statement? He’s 100% right

I disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and favor an autocracy.

[Obama24]

He’s correct.

Disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and want an autocracy, and were perfectly fine with burning down the ideals our forefathers - yes, even the slavers and segregationists among them - fought for in favor of keeping one man in power.

I would say they are more similar to the Henry Fords of the American past, than to any Southern racist, honestly. I'd befriend a segregationist sooner than I would a fascist. At least the racist and I would agree in the Republic as it stands, and not want it changed to rule by one, even if we disagreed on racial equality.

[HisGrace]

He’s correct.

Disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and want an autocracy, and were perfectly fine with burning down the ideals our forefathers - yes, even the slavers and segregationists among them - fought for in favor of keeping one man in power.

I would say they are more similar to the Henry Fords of the American past, than to any Southern racist, honestly. I'd befriend a segregationist sooner than I would a fascist. At least the racist and I would agree in the Republic as it stands, and not want it changed to rule by one, even if we disagreed on racial equality.

This isn't the case at all. In the Jim Crow south blacks were pretty much 100% shadowbanned from voting, as were poor whites through the poll tax, so the former planter class could still run everything. The overwhelming majority of elections for anything important (governor, congress, state leg.) had one name on the ballot. It was a farce and effectively a single party authoritarian state. When people started protesting that state of affairs in the 50's and 60's they got put down through often brutal means, cops beating up civil rights protestors with bats or clubs wrapped in barbed wire became a common tactic.

I agree I wouldn't compare them to Hitler because they just wanted to keep blacks as a permanent underclass rather than round them up and gas them, but comparisons of southern dems to Mussolini or Franco are fair I think. There were southern dems who were Nazi sympathizers as well during the war and advocated for the US to stay neutral in Europe even after Pearl Harbor.

Their economic views don't have anything to do with this and an example like this should put to bed the "oPPrEsION iS lINKEd!!1!" intersectional crap.

Given how US history classes these days are pretty much just racism lessons I'm not sure how someone can not know all of this.

[President Johnson]

How did that strategy work for Hilary Clinton?

Why is it that Republicans are allowed to say the absolute worst things in the world about Democrats and liberals, but the moment we punch back, you guys have a complete meltdown?

Not to mention Republicans are trashing Democratic dominated places 24/7 like San Francisco, California in general or New York.

[Vice President Christian Man]

He’s correct.

Disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and want an autocracy, and were perfectly fine with burning down the ideals our forefathers - yes, even the slavers and segregationists among them - fought for in favor of keeping one man in power.

I would say they are more similar to the Henry Fords of the American past, than to any Southern racist, honestly. I'd befriend a segregationist sooner than I would a fascist. At least the racist and I would agree in the Republic as it stands, and not want it changed to rule by one, even if we disagreed on racial equality.

This isn't the case at all. In the Jim Crow south blacks were pretty much 100% shadowbanned from voting, as were poor whites through the poll tax, so the former planter class could still run everything. The overwhelming majority of elections for anything important (governor, congress, state leg.) had one name on the ballot. It was a farce and effectively a single party authoritarian state. When people started protesting that state of affairs in the 50's and 60's they got put down through often brutal means, cops beating up civil rights protestors with bats or clubs wrapped in barbed wire became a common tactic.

I agree I wouldn't compare them to Hitler because they just wanted to keep blacks as a permanent underclass rather than round them up and gas them, but comparisons of southern dems to Mussolini or Franco are fair I think. There were southern dems who were Nazi sympathizers as well during the war and advocated for the US to stay neutral in Europe even after Pearl Harbor.

Their economic views don't have anything to do with this and an example like this should put to bed the "oPPrEsION iS lINKEd!!1!" intersectional crap.

Given how US history classes these days are pretty much just racism lessons I'm not sure how someone can not know all of this.

The only Southern Dem I could think of was Robert Reynolds of North Carolina and the South was one of the regions that was the most supportive of FDR's foreign policy. There was more Nazi and Fascist sympathies from GOPers especially in the Midwest.

[OSR stands with Israel]

He’s correct.

Disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and want an autocracy, and were perfectly fine with burning down the ideals our forefathers - yes, even the slavers and segregationists among them - fought for in favor of keeping one man in power.

I would say they are more similar to the Henry Fords of the American past, than to any Southern racist, honestly. I'd befriend a segregationist sooner than I would a fascist. At least the racist and I would agree in the Republic as it stands, and not want it changed to rule by one, even if we disagreed on racial equality.

This isn't the case at all. In the Jim Crow south blacks were pretty much 100% shadowbanned from voting, as were poor whites through the poll tax, so the former planter class could still run everything. The overwhelming majority of elections for anything important (governor, congress, state leg.) had one name on the ballot. It was a farce and effectively a single party authoritarian state. When people started protesting that state of affairs in the 50's and 60's they got put down through often brutal means, cops beating up civil rights protestors with bats or clubs wrapped in barbed wire became a common tactic.

I agree I wouldn't compare them to Hitler because they just wanted to keep blacks as a permanent underclass rather than round them up and gas them, but comparisons of southern dems to Mussolini or Franco are fair I think. There were southern dems who were Nazi sympathizers as well during the war and advocated for the US to stay neutral in Europe even after Pearl Harbor.

Their economic views don't have anything to do with this and an example like this should put to bed the "oPPrEsION iS lINKEd!!1!" intersectional crap.

Given how US history classes these days are pretty much just racism lessons I'm not sure how someone can not know all of this.

The only Southern Dem I could think of was Robert Reynolds of North Carolina and the South was one of the regions that was the most supportive of FDR's foreign policy. There was more Nazi and Fascist sympathies from GOPers especially in the Midwest.

Yeah , southern democrats were some of the most pro war democrats during WW2 and that’s even true before Pearl Harbor . There is lots to criticize them for but this isn’t one of it

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

He’s correct.

Disagree.

Southern Segregationists were racists, but they were not Fascists.

A Southern Democrat could work within our democratic system, and not necessarily want us to change our form of government to Mussolini's or Hitler's.

A good chunk of the New Deal coalition that made the New Deal programs possible were these Southern Segregationists. They may have been racist, but they respected the idea of our democracy. Even in 1948, they didn't attempt to overturn the election, they simply split and ran their own candidate.

Trump supporters don't favor democracy and want an autocracy, and were perfectly fine with burning down the ideals our forefathers - yes, even the slavers and segregationists among them - fought for in favor of keeping one man in power.

I would say they are more similar to the Henry Fords of the American past, than to any Southern racist, honestly. I'd befriend a segregationist sooner than I would a fascist. At least the racist and I would agree in the Republic as it stands, and not want it changed to rule by one, even if we disagreed on racial equality.

This isn't the case at all. In the Jim Crow south blacks were pretty much 100% shadowbanned from voting, as were poor whites through the poll tax, so the former planter class could still run everything. The overwhelming majority of elections for anything important (governor, congress, state leg.) had one name on the ballot. It was a farce and effectively a single party authoritarian state. When people started protesting that state of affairs in the 50's and 60's they got put down through often brutal means, cops beating up civil rights protestors with bats or clubs wrapped in barbed wire became a common tactic.

I agree I wouldn't compare them to Hitler because they just wanted to keep blacks as a permanent underclass rather than round them up and gas them, but comparisons of southern dems to Mussolini or Franco are fair I think. There were southern dems who were Nazi sympathizers as well during the war and advocated for the US to stay neutral in Europe even after Pearl Harbor.

Their economic views don't have anything to do with this and an example like this should put to bed the "oPPrEsION iS lINKEd!!1!" intersectional crap.

Given how US history classes these days are pretty much just racism lessons I'm not sure how someone can not know all of this.

The only Southern Dem I could think of was Robert Reynolds of North Carolina and the South was one of the regions that was the most supportive of FDR's foreign policy. There was more Nazi and Fascist sympathies from GOPers especially in the Midwest.

Yeah , southern democrats were some of the most pro war democrats during WW2 and that’s even true before Pearl Harbor . There is lots to criticize them for but this isn’t one of it

Southern Democrats helped save our allies during a trying time during which American leadership was needed to help stop the Nazis. Without their votes, Lend-Lease would have been defeated by Midwestern isolationists.
God bless them for that. Credit where credit is due.

[ProudModerate2]

It was not that long ago that trump/MAGA supporters, en masse, took over an entire (southern) city with Nazi-inspired tiki torches and chanting "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us."

So yes. There is some comparison.