http://prntly.com/blog/kkk-grand-dragon-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-ahead-of-super-tuesday-2/
As a Trump supporter, it irritates me to no end how I and others like me are labeled "morons" and "racists."
Will Clinton be asked to "disavow" William Quigg? Or will the media brush it off?
I don't think it will be necessary for anyone to ask her to disavow Quigg.
What's up with the latest fights at Trump rallies?
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1124875160877306/
QuoteAs a Trump supporter...
Huh. Didn't think very many vocal atheists would be a fan of him.
As for Hillary, hopefully she shows more class than Trump and denounces the endorsement immediately rather than saying, "Well... I don't really know who he is so I can't really say one way or another if I do or don't want it...".
I think you actually make a fair point though on asking if she will be asked to denounce it or not though. I have the feeling she won't, simply because she is Hillary rather than any sort of conspiracy against the Drumph.
lolz at troll endorsement.
Anyone else think this?
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/103455/using-the-klan
This is an example of a man using the revulsion with which most of the country regards him as a political weapon.
In his simple mind, he believes his endorsement will cost Hillary far, far more votes than it brings her. This endorsement is actually an attack.
kinda gay
Quote from: Nonsensei on March 14, 2016, 08:37:00 PM
This is an example of a man using the revulsion with which most of the country regards him as a political weapon.
In his simple mind, he believes his endorsement will cost Hillary far, far more votes than it brings her. This endorsement is actually an attack.
This. I don't believe for a second the leader of the KKK would support a "N****r loving" woman like Hillary out of genuine respect for her stances and policies.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 07:56:24 PMAs a Trump supporter, it irritates me to no end how I and others like me are labeled "morons" and "racists."
People who live in the Sahara complain about the heat.
Y'all are subject to conspiracy theory. Fact is, Hillary has always been a Republican. Her policies are Republican. I don't think for a minute that she loves African-Americans ... too busy loving money. So in some respects, though it is out there that the endorsement is legit, you will notice that she gets most of the D-Primary votes in the Deep South ... is this only because African-Americans want to be taken to the cleaners again by a DINO? Or is it because some White Southern folk are voting for Hillary? Even cross-over votes (no joke).
Quote from: Shiranu on March 14, 2016, 09:01:44 PM
This. I don't believe for a second the leader of the KKK would support a "N****r loving" woman like Hillary out of genuine respect for her stances and policies.
I think racism is a lot more nuanced than we think. Two of my aunts are lesbians and both are Hillary supporters, but both voted McCain in 2008 because they didn't want a black president.
Quote from: Baruch on March 14, 2016, 10:22:55 PM
Y'all are subject to conspiracy theory. Fact is, Hillary has always been a Republican. Her policies are Republican. I don't think for a minute that she loves African-Americans ... too busy loving money. So in some respects, though it is out there that the endorsement is legit, you will notice that she gets most of the D-Primary votes in the Deep South ... is this only because African-Americans want to be taken to the cleaners again by a DINO? Or is it because some White Southern folk are voting for Hillary? Even cross-over votes (no joke).
Yeah. No.
Those guys over in the White Supremacy camp act like they don't know what they are doing. One guy endorses Trump, and then the other guy endorses Clinton: "Hey look everybody. We make political endorsements, just like newspapers, labor unions, and viable political action groups. We must be an important part of the picture. Yay, yay, KKK!"
Someone who proclaims to be a "Grand Dragon" of some sort sounds like a airhead having trouble getting it up, while having a manic fantasy about the olden days.
Quote from: Baruch on March 14, 2016, 10:22:55 PM
Y'all are subject to conspiracy theory. Fact is, Hillary has always been a Republican. Her policies are Republican. I don't think for a minute that she loves African-Americans ... too busy loving money. So in some respects, though it is out there that the endorsement is legit, you will notice that she gets most of the D-Primary votes in the Deep South ... is this only because African-Americans want to be taken to the cleaners again by a DINO? Or is it because some White Southern folk are voting for Hillary? Even cross-over votes (no joke).
Ah, you're Poe. I couldn't figure out any way your position made sense, until you outed yourself there.
meh. I think if I was a politician I would say, "though I don't agree with every thing this person believes in, he is still a citizen and can vote for whomever he wants." Why distance yourself? There are plenty sicko fucks voting for everybody, nobody is interested in vetting every voter.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 07:56:24 PM
http://prntly.com/blog/kkk-grand-dragon-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-ahead-of-super-tuesday-2/
As a Trump supporter, it irritates me to no end how I and others like me are labeled "morons" and "racists."
Will Clinton be asked to "disavow" William Quigg? Or will the media brush it off?
You need to own the racism and bigotry that you are supporting.
If it offends you - then stop associating with racists. It is really that simple.
As to Hillary - this is laughable. Mr Quigg even admits that this is based on a conspiracy theory that Clinton is not who she says she is. She has a public record a mile long... and it has never included any element of the KKK agenda. Very few people suddenly realize the brilliance of the KKK at 70 years of age.
Mr Quigg has, for the past six months, been tweeting favorable reviews for Donald Trump. All of a sudden, a new conspiracy theory is invented and he switches positions... yeah... that is how the world works.
Any honest, unbiased observer can see through this pile of bullshit.
I went to school with the son of the Grand Dragon for Indiana, back in the late '60s. The kid disappeared the day after he graduated from high school and turned up a few years later working to improve health and sanitation in Kinshasa. I thought that was pretty cool. As for this current dweeb, who among us would have known his name if he hadn't pulled this stunt?
Well, very few people in the US have made life as shitty for blacks as the Clintons have. No matter who gets in, it's an L for blacks. They've shot themselves in the foot once again by voting for Clinton based on her name rather than actually looking into the issues.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 15, 2016, 12:46:19 PM
Well, very few people in the US have made life as shitty for blacks as the Clintons have. No matter who gets in, it's an L for blacks. They've shot themselves in the foot once again by voting for Clinton based on her name rather than actually looking into the issues.
The Clintons are evil, all the way from the top of their fake halos to the bottom of their clawed feet! They may not be racists ... they are classist however. If you didn't get an invitation to the $2.5 million wedding of their daughter, then they probably don't give a shit for you.
Of course many people have been confused by what a Democrat is, over the past 60 years. They used to be segregationists in 1/3 of the US. Not all of them became Republicans officially ... the Clintons are Deep Cotton.
I read a short portion of what the Grand Dragon said ... he let it out of the bag, that Hillary is a Republican ... and indeed she and her husband are ... y'all have been taken for rubes since the 1980s with these evil Crackers from Little Rock.
That's two good reasons to vote for Hillary in a row.
I only read the title of the article and the little bit written under the title to know that this was a farce. He wasn't actually supporting her, so there will be no need for her to disavow him. He said something along the lines of, "Since I know she's a liar and will do exactly the opposite of what she says she'll do..."
Quote from: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
I only read the title of the article and the little bit written under the title to know that this was a farce. He wasn't actually supporting her, so there will be no need for her to disavow him. He said something along the lines of, "Since I know she's a liar and will do exactly the opposite of what she says she'll do..."
Not what I read. He seems to be speaking straight. All politicians are liars, so it is unnecessary to say that Hillary lies. And all politicians do the opposite of what they campaigned about, once they get into office, see Obama. Your paraphrase (not quote) of what he said is a misquote. Here is what he said:
“We want Hillary Clinton to win,†Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
Don't break your back doing a limbo to parse them.
“We don’t like his hair. We think it’s a toupee,†Quigg said. “He won’t do what he says he will do. He says he’s going to build a 20-foot high fence along the border with Mexico and make them pay. How’s he going to do that?â€
So much for Trump being the next Hitler. If he was the next Hitler, this guy would still be on side with Trump.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 15, 2016, 09:09:20 AM
Ah, you're Poe. I couldn't figure out any way your position made sense, until you outed yourself there.
I make a hypothesis ... but it isn't my personal position. You should note the question marks. My personal position is I wouldn't hire either Clinton as dog catcher. Also it should be well known from previous posts, that I am outed as an Independent ... I have no love for either major party in the US. It remains to be seen, how well Hillary polls outside of the South, and what people think if an indictment comes thru for "email-gate".
Question: which KKK is he grand dragon of? There's no one KKK anymore and there's no one grand dragon.
Shit, I'm gonna start my own KKK. We'll be inclusive towards all races, sexualities, religions, gender identities, and political ideologies. We'll make our money by selling sex toys. At the same time, we'll still wear the white hoods so we confuse the hell out of people.
(http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/62045/gay%20black%20jewish%20klansmen-500x322.jpg)
Quote from: SGOS on March 15, 2016, 08:17:04 AM
Those guys over in the White Supremacy camp act like they don't know what they are doing. One guy endorses Trump, and then the other guy endorses Clinton: "Hey look everybody. We make political endorsements, just like newspapers, labor unions, and viable political action groups. We must be an important part of the picture. Yay, yay, KKK!"
Someone who proclaims to be a "Grand Dragon" of some sort sounds like a airhead having trouble getting it up, while having a manic fantasy about the olden days.
This exactly why the democrat/liberal attack on trump for the whole KKK thing as if that somehow showed trump was bigoted was ridiculous and just gave more validity to the narrative that the liberal news outlets will do anything they can to smear him. If the liberals writing this attack articles against trump would turn on their brains they would realize they are playing a part on his narrative. Just lying, saying outrageous shit about trump, attacking his character or using fallacious reasoning to expose his racism is not gonna do anything to weaken him. What you need to do is hold him accountable to his own words and make him talk specifics. Trump is based on vagueness trying to pander to all sorts of people without alienating others. Journalist need to take him to task on what the hell does he actually believe. Just look at anything like gay marriage for example his position is vague because he tries to pander to both sides with pretty meaningless statements and actions.
Quote from: mauricio on March 16, 2016, 01:19:03 AM
This exactly why the democrat/liberal attack on trump for the whole KKK thing as if that somehow showed trump was bigoted was ridiculous and just gave more validity to the narrative that the liberal news outlets will do anything they can to smear him. If the liberals writing this attack articles against trump would turn on their brains they would realize they are playing a part on his narrative. Just lying, saying outrageous shit about trump, attacking his character or using fallacious reasoning to expose his racism is not gonna do anything to weaken him. What you need to do is hold him accountable to his own words and make him talk specifics. Trump is based on vagueness trying to pander to all sorts of people without alienating others. Journalist need to take him to task on what the hell does he actually believe. Just look at anything like gay marriage for example his position is vague because he tries to pander to both sides with pretty meaningless statements and actions.
True, he's still a pig in a poke. No one knows what they are actually getting. Some are convinced they know, just as many of us thought we could anticipate Obama. In many ways, Trump is no different than the rest of the mugs who pass themselves off as statesmen. As for the press, they aren't very good at holding feet to the fire. When they have in the past, it often came off as personal attacks, like a reporters with axes to grind. While this was often highly entertaining, it wasn't always helpful. The press often asks appropriate questions, which the politicians can reply to with the answers to questions they wanted to be asked instead, and the press moves on, apparently satisfied that a dialog has been achieved. Apparently, the politicians don't really listen to the questions, and the media isn't listening to the answers either. They are just there to provide airtime to candidates.
I don't know if the media has an anti Trump agenda. I think partly, they just find him interesting, so he gets a lot of coverage. And he is one of the most interesting characters in the political arena, although I tend to think (without knowing what he has planned) that his presidency will be pretty much the train wreck that his reality TV show was. Entertaining to many, but totally useless in helping the masses out of their foggy brained fantasies.
I've known loud mouth narcissists like Trump who are able to create small clouds of groupies that seem to hang on their every word. I've never understood the dynamic, and I'm not sure people hang on their words as tidbits of wisdom. They seem more like they are draw to the outrageous ranting that has some undefinable shock appeal. I think Trump does this. In addition, his followers seem to ignore the other candidates in the GOP as if they are so uninterestingly "20th century", and unconsciously recognize them as the hucksters they are. They don't see that in Trump, even though he's the most naked huckster on the stage. He's just wildly different, and many people are ready for different. I am too, but Trump is not an appealing kind of "different" to me.
A skeptic wouldn't hang on someone's every word, a groupie would. Especially a political or religious groupie. I don't believe anything Trump says, even if he says something I like ... it is reality TV all the way down. Enjoy the ride, but if you vomit, don't do it over my head.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 14, 2016, 08:00:18 PM
I don't think it will be necessary for anyone to ask her to disavow Quigg.
Why not? I notice she hasn't done so.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 17, 2016, 08:22:25 PM
Why not? I notice she hasn't done so.
Salted Crackers ... salted with green.
Quote from: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:36:08 PM
Not what I read. He seems to be speaking straight. All politicians are liars, so it is unnecessary to say that Hillary lies. And all politicians do the opposite of what they campaigned about, once they get into office, see Obama. Your paraphrase (not quote) of what he said is a misquote. Here is what he said:
“We want Hillary Clinton to win,†Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
Don't break your back doing a limbo to parse them.
“We don’t like his hair. We think it’s a toupee,†Quigg said. “He won’t do what he says he will do. He says he’s going to build a 20-foot high fence along the border with Mexico and make them pay. How’s he going to do that?â€
So much for Trump being the next Hitler. If he was the next Hitler, this guy would still be on side with Trump.
I would use the same paraphrase, given the quote you posted.
You're taking a KKK leader at his word. Do you think he doesn't know that his endorsement is a poison pill? Your entire argument here relies on taking a KKK member completely at his word. Because you can't trust a politician! But this KKK guy...he seems legit.
Your logic here is a little shaky, and I'm afraid your facts are wrong. Politicians never keep all their campaign promises, but that hardly means they "do the opposite of what they campaigned about" when they take office. A simple Politifact check (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) shows that he has hardly done "the opposite" of what he campaigned for. I could make the same shaky argument against Mr. Mediocre, Bush Sr. He made a BIG DEAL out of "No new taxes!" First thing, new taxes. But that was ONE PROMISE among many and hardly constitutes doing "the opposite" of what he campaigned for. In this one, single area, yes. But that's not deserving such a sweeping generalization.
Just because you like Trump doesn't mean you should suspend your usual level of intellect in his defense, and this post was not your usual level of intellect. Not even close. I don't blindly support Obama or Hillary or Sanders. I don't pretend that they are perfect for the country or could do no wrong. If you point out a problem with them (a REAL problem, not the conjecture you just made up because you don't like them), I can accept that. They are all flawed, as we all are. But let's debate on merits rather than pretending that one KKK guy is on the up and up and really, truly supports Hillary. Especially over Trump, who, let's face it, VERY MUCH DOES appeal to racist people. (https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/oops-pbs-story-trump-supporters-221003379.html) Whether he is racist or not is irrelevant. The message, "We need to get rid of all illegal aliens and stop Muslims from entering this country" translates very readily in their heads to, "We need to get rid of all the Mexicans and stop Arabs from entering this country." The two sentences may not mean the same thing, but the effect is virtually the same for both, which
does appeal to racists. That is just a fact, my friend.
Alas ... you are connecting my dots and getting a different picture than myself ;-) This happens in ideological politics all the time.
So we can assume that all KKK people are racist? That is probably correct. We can assume all KKK people are stupid? Probably not correct. We can assume all KKK people are dishonest? Probably not correct.
On the other hand, ideologically (counter examples don't matter) I assume any politician is lying, before or after election. That isn't the same as they will do the opposite of what they say after election ... reality isn't that binary. I said "He seems to be speaking straight" ... unlike George W ... I can't look into Putin's soul and know he is an OK guy ;-)
It is OK to be ideologically against Mr Trump, or against the variety of folks who are attracted to his "apparent" message ... just be sure you and your audience know that you are speaking ideologically. As far as my personal position ... I haven't done much to reveal that ... since I am mostly waiting for campaign/convention things to sort out.
Quote from: widdershins on March 18, 2016, 11:17:40 AMYou're taking a KKK leader at his word. Do you think he doesn't know that his endorsement is a poison pill? Your entire argument here relies on taking a KKK member completely at his word.
Nobody made that argument when a different KKK guy endorsed Trump. Instead Trump was asked several times to disavow that one guy, and did, and when he finally got annoyed enough to tell yet another reporter with that same question to buzz off, that was repeated as if he hadn't made the previous disavowals.
Yet Hillary has not been asked to disavow this guy, nor has she volunteered to do so without being asked.
I don't really care who endorses who because I wouldn't vote for anyone just because someone endorsed them, much less some kkk asswipe..
Oh look! Celebrity X endorsed Candidate Y.. Well FUCK! I better not vote for Y because X endorsed them!
There was a time when endorsements actually meant something, but now it's like someone telling us to all wipe our asses with old rusty tin cans and to avoid soft tissue at all costs..
If you're hung up on who is endorsing who you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 20, 2016, 12:25:05 AM
Nobody made that argument when a different KKK guy endorsed Trump. Instead Trump was asked several times to disavow that one guy, and did, and when he finally got annoyed enough to tell yet another reporter with that same question to buzz off, that was repeated as if he hadn't made the previous disavowals.
Yet Hillary has not been asked to disavow this guy, nor has she volunteered to do so without being asked.
The KKK guy was clearly trolling and being sarcastic. He said he thinks Hillary is just pretending to be anti-gun, so clearly it's a troll and I don't think it's necessary for Hillary to disavow Quigg.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 20, 2016, 02:38:36 PM
The KKK guy was clearly trolling and being sarcastic. He said he thinks Hillary is just pretending to be anti-gun, so clearly it's a troll and I don't think it's necessary for Hillary to disavow Quigg.
If people assume that Trump is Jefferson Davis ... then there is no need for him to disavow the other KKK guy, or Nathan Bedford Forrest for that matter ;-) All government officials are anti-gun, they just don't all come out and say it. They know who the guns are trained on ;-(
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 20, 2016, 02:38:36 PM
The KKK guy was clearly trolling and being sarcastic. He said he thinks Hillary is just pretending to be anti-gun, so clearly it's a troll and I don't think it's necessary for Hillary to disavow Quigg.
It is necessary because she hasn't done so. You are the one giving Hillary credit by saying the KKK guy was trolling.
Unless Hillary says that, I'll have no choice but to assume she is ok with the endorsement.
Corn pone don't fall far from the skillet ;-)
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on March 20, 2016, 12:25:05 AM
Nobody made that argument when a different KKK guy endorsed Trump. Instead Trump was asked several times to disavow that one guy, and did, and when he finally got annoyed enough to tell yet another reporter with that same question to buzz off, that was repeated as if he hadn't made the previous disavowals.
Yet Hillary has not been asked to disavow this guy, nor has she volunteered to do so without being asked.
I really hope you're not serious with that post, because if you are you are either uninformed, misinformed or willfully ignorant of the facts. First, David Duke did not formally endorse Trump because he knew better, saying, "...I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do." It was an endorsement, to be sure, but he didn't come out and say it, saying just the opposite so that nobody could claim he did. The guy obviously loves Trump. He said voting for anyone other than Trump was "treason to your heritage." He even said you should volunteer for Trump. AND STILL he went out of his way to say that he did not "formally endorse" Trump. He did that because he knows a KKK endorsement is a poison pill.
Second, the "everything we hope he will do" from the above quote translates to "get rid of all the Mexicans". If you disagree with that you're just being obtuse. He likes Trump because his message is appealing to racists.
But when you look at Hillary's endorsement from Quigg, it's COMPLETELY different. It WAS an actual "endorsement". He said, "We want Hillary Clinton to win." And why? Essentially, because she's a liar. Because everything she says is a lie so she stands for exactly the opposite of what she says. Because she thinks JUST LIKE Quigg in secret.
I'm sure you'll argue against that. If you really believe what you wrote then facts likely don't mean much to you anyway, as they don't to most conservatives who desperately want to pretend that Hillary Clinton personally lead the attack on Benghazi. These days I don't have much more respect for conservatives (as a whole, not all individual conservatives everywhere) than I do for any other given religious group, because conservatism these days is completely indistinguishable from a religion. There are certain things that you HAVE TO believe and that you WILL believe, regardless what the facts say. And those things include that Hillary Clinton is evil and anything negative said by, about or to her, spoken in her presence or in an article within a week of another, unrelated article vaguely mentioning someone who may be her is directly attributed to her and any negativity about a conservative, especially a favored conservative, is a blatant lie, even when it's true, and utterly unfair in every way.
The FACT is that Trump's message is attractive to, IN ADDITION TO OTHER, UNRELATED PEOPLE, racists and xenophobes. The FACT is that Hillary's message simply is not. You can twist the facts all you want, find all the Benghazis you can remotely link to Hillary through abuses of associative logic, you can DEFINITELY point out some bad things about her (I certainly don't think she's anything near resembling honest or sincere, but I don't think that about most politicians) and you can pretend that an ACTUAL endorsement of Trump by Duke is nowhere near as bad as a SARCASTIC endorsement of Hillary by Quigg because this bogus reason or that bogus reason, but like all religious apologetics, at the end of the day you're only convincing people who already believe anyway. You'll sway me, and most of the people here, only with facts, which are not on your side here. Save the conservative propaganda and conspiracy nuttery about Hillary being the devil for your next GOP meeting, now become the DOP, the Delusional Old Party.
I don't want Bill in the White House again ... if she would kill him and mount his head over the fireplace, I would vote for Hillary.
Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2016, 06:54:51 PM
I don't want Bill in the White House again ... if she would kill him and mount his head over the fireplace, I would vote for Hillary.
Now there is an honest response that I can respect. It's simple and straightforward with no propaganda pretending to be based in reality. If the entire right-wing was still this honest then when people asked me how I intended to vote my response would not be "Anyone but the Republican".
I can respect Sanders, so I can vote for him. I don't respect Trump, but if the alternative is Hillary ... then no dice.
How about JEB endorsing Cruz .. I didn't think JEB could limbo that low!
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2016, 12:23:27 PM
I can respect Sanders, so I can vote for him. I don't respect Trump, but if the alternative is Hillary ... then no dice.
How about JEB endorsing Cruz .. I didn't think JEB could limbo that low!
He's a Bush and he threw a presidential election to get his brother in office by "losing" predominantly black people's votes. I hate Cruz, but supporting him has got to be a step up from treason.
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2016, 12:23:27 PM
I can respect Sanders, so I can vote for him. I don't respect Trump, but if the alternative is Hillary ... then no dice.
How about JEB endorsing Cruz .. I didn't think JEB could limbo that low!
If Clinton wins the nomination, you're voting for Trump!? Seriously?
Quote from: Mermaid on March 23, 2016, 07:51:52 PM
If Clinton wins the nomination, you're voting for Trump!? Seriously?
I would vote for Hitler's reanimated corpse, before I would vote for any of the three Clintons ... and I am Jewish. At least Hitler's reanimated corpse would do less damage. I am an I, not a D, not an R. I means I can think for myself ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2016, 07:54:26 PM
I would vote for Hitler's reanimated corpse, before I would vote for any of the three Clintons ... and I am Jewish. At least Hitler's reanimated corpse would do less damage. I am an I, not a D, not an R. I means I can think for myself ;-)
You really think that's a good idea...
Quote from: dtq123 on March 23, 2016, 10:01:00 PM
You really think that's a good idea...
I am too lazy to put <sarc> after much of my postings. You have to read between the mad cackles. Dead people can't be reanimated. I = independent, which I indeed am.
Why do people take the KKK seriously any more? Their membership is less that 10 thousand, and that's being generous. It's really not surprising that there would be such an endorsement though, in their hey day most were members of the Democrat Party.
Quote from: Jack89 on March 24, 2016, 02:16:48 PM
Why do people take the KKK seriously any more? Their membership is less that 10 thousand, and that's being generous. It's really not surprising that there would be such an endorsement though, in their hey day most were members of the Democrat Party.
To put that in context, though, the two parties today are vastly different than they were back in the day. And it wasn't a real endorsement. He was essentially calling her a lying snake who would do the opposite of what she said, and since he agreed with the opposite of what she said, he "endorsed" her. It was sarcasm, essentially.
Quote from: widdershins on March 24, 2016, 03:04:53 PM
To put that in context, though, the two parties today are vastly different than they were back in the day. And it wasn't a real endorsement. He was essentially calling her a lying snake who would do the opposite of what she said, and since he agreed with the opposite of what she said, he "endorsed" her. It was sarcasm, essentially.
Then why isn't it sarcasm when a different KKK guy endorses Trump? If one hates Hillary, then one answers one way. If one hates Trump, then one answers the other way. But I agree it doesn't matter ... the White Power movement in prisons is far broader and bigger than the old KKK.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 06:12:52 PM
Then why isn't it sarcasm when a different KKK guy endorses Trump? If one hates Hillary, then one answers one way. If one hates Trump, then one answers the other way. But I agree it doesn't matter ... the White Power movement in prisons is far broader and bigger than the old KKK.
It isn't sarcasm when the speaker isn't speaking sarcastically. David Duke was not being sarcastic. Quigg was. Read their statements and see for yourself. The sarcasm in what Quigg is saying is plain as day, there is no hint of it in what Duke said. These two situations are different because, not because I love Hillary so much and hate Trump so much, but because they are actually different.
Quote from: widdershins on March 25, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
It isn't sarcasm when the speaker isn't speaking sarcastically. David Duke was not being sarcastic. Quigg was. Read their statements and see for yourself. The sarcasm in what Quigg is saying is plain as day, there is no hint of it in what Duke said. These two situations are different because, not because I love Hillary so much and hate Trump so much, but because they are actually different.
Hard to tell. Lets waterboard the different KKK guys, so see where they are really coming from. If we don't find out anything more ... no loss to us ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2016, 12:31:15 PM
Hard to tell. Lets waterboard the different KKK guys, so see where they are really coming from. If we don't find out anything more ... no loss to us ;-)
How is it hard to tell? Quigg's sarcasm is plain as day with, "I agree wholeheartedly with the OPPOSITE of what Hillary Clinton says and, since I know her to be a liar who cannot be trusted, saying the opposite of what she actually means, I support her". I may be paraphrasing, but it's an accurate depiction of what he said. That is clearly sarcasm.
Duke, on the other hand, never says anything whatsoever negative about Trump. He gives what appears to be a genuine, glowing review of Trump's policies. And he makes a point to state that he is not formally endorsing Trump to avoid stigmatizing him. And, let's face it, Trump's deportation plan does appeal to racists. That's not saying that Trump is a racist, nor is it saying that Trump's supporters are racist, just that deporting 11 million Mexicans is a message many racists want to hear.
As for the waterboarding comment, I know it was a joke, but I am a firm believer in free speech, even when I don't agree with that speech. I am, after all, a member of one of the most hated minorities with one of the most unpopular messages in America (but thankfully growing quickly in popularity). Though I in no way support the KKK and wouldn't shed a tear if all of them died horrible, painful deaths, I support their right to spread their hate speech because I value my right to spread common sense, a right many Christians would gleefully take away while proclaiming it to be a victory for free speech, somehow.
That being said, if you WERE to waterboard a few KKK members....I didn't see shit!
You read people wrong on many points in your post, both regarding KKK and myself. Given a chance, I would waterboard a lot of people ... and still not care if it were effective or not. I don't take anything a KKK person says as a witticism, but you can next time you are undercover at one of their claverns. Be sure and take a Black fellow with you, just to test their sense of humor.
I don't think they're more different than they were before, I think they just hate each other more.
I know this is an old thread, but I saw an article today (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/08/05/488802494/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-says-of-course-trump-voters-are-his-voters) which made me think of it. Former KKK leader David Duke is running for office and has blatantly said essentially that Trump voters are obviously going to be his voters as well.
To reiterate (in all fairness), I had earlier said that David Duke (the subject of this article) had not formally endorsed Trump because he "knew better'. In this article he does formally endorse Trump, so my reasoning was flawed there.
But on to the point of reviving this old thread, obviously trump's message resonates with racist people. Does that mean all Trump supporters are racist? Certainly not. However, the comparison between Trump supporters and racism is not entirely unfair, on a general level.
Baruch, your political opinions are almost as important as whether Brand X toilet paper changes its embossing pattern next week or not. Actually I think most people care more about Brand X. The only real opinion you've given is that anyone who has ever run for any political office is horrible.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on August 05, 2016, 01:33:02 PM
Baruch, your political opinions are almost as important as whether Brand X toilet paper changes its embossing pattern next week or not. Actually I think most people care more about Brand X. The only real opinion you've given is that anyone who has ever run for any political office is horrible.
APA, you and your TP embossing patterns. I've seen you mention it twice. Now you have piqued my interest and I think (after inspecting my own brand of TP) I'll start my own collection. Can you imagine what it will look like when the walls of all three of my bathrooms are covered with different TP brands of embossing??? It is simply mind boggling. When I'm finished I'll have to invite you over for a big dump!!! Shit yea!!!!
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on August 05, 2016, 01:33:02 PM
Baruch, your political opinions are almost as important as whether Brand X toilet paper changes its embossing pattern next week or not. Actually I think most people care more about Brand X. The only real opinion you've given is that anyone who has ever run for any political office is horrible.
I view human beings as basically bad ... so of course all political candidates are bad, unless you have a dog or cat running for office ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2016, 12:00:55 PM
I view human beings as basically bad ... so of course all political candidates are bad, unless you have a dog or cat running for office ;-)
Winston for president.
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/overwatch/images/4/42/Winston_portrait.png/revision/latest?cb=20160429041559)