Trump Alone at the Top

[B-Man]

To Democrats, Donald Trump Is No Longer a Laughing Matter

New York Times, by Amy Chozick And Maggie Haberman

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

America’s Most Dangerous Demagogue Lives In The White House.

 

There’s a demagogue loose in the land. He uses immigration and the war on terror to drive a wedge into the American populace. He traffics in absurd conspiracy theories about foreign influence, he mocks his political opponents, and he inspires friends and allies to lash out, lawlessly, against them. He compares patriotic Americans to jihadists, and he endangers our national security with his reckless rhetoric.

I’m speaking, of course, about the President of the United States

. It’s been amusing to watch the media hyperventilate over Donald Trump’s comments when it has largely cheered or ignored our own president’s rhetoric — rhetoric that’s inspired serial violations of First Amendment freedoms, and been used as justification for executive overreach and deadly mistakes at home and abroad.

We knew of Barack Obama’s contempt for his political opponents in 2008, when he famously mocked Hillary Clinton’s blue-collar supporters, calling them “bitter” and saying they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” But this was small potatoes compared to the rhetoric he’d employ once he was elected.

 

 

 

 

Worst President Ever. Or at least since that racist Woodrow Wilson.

[Tiberius]

To Democrats, Donald Trump Is No Longer a Laughing Matter

New York Times, by Amy Chozick And Maggie Haberman

 

Original Article

 

 

 

Go Hillary! The more she attacks him the more mindless idiots in the GOP--the majority--will flock to this guy

[3rdnlng]

To Democrats, Donald Trump Is No Longer a Laughing Matter

New York Times, by Amy Chozick And Maggie Haberman

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

America’s Most Dangerous Demagogue Lives In The White House.

 

There’s a demagogue loose in the land. He uses immigration and the war on terror to drive a wedge into the American populace. He traffics in absurd conspiracy theories about foreign influence, he mocks his political opponents, and he inspires friends and allies to lash out, lawlessly, against them. He compares patriotic Americans to jihadists, and he endangers our national security with his reckless rhetoric.

I’m speaking, of course, about the President of the United States

. It’s been amusing to watch the media hyperventilate over Donald Trump’s comments when it has largely cheered or ignored our own president’s rhetoric — rhetoric that’s inspired serial violations of First Amendment freedoms, and been used as justification for executive overreach and deadly mistakes at home and abroad.

We knew of Barack Obama’s contempt for his political opponents in 2008, when he famously mocked Hillary Clinton’s blue-collar supporters, calling them “bitter” and saying they “cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.” But this was small potatoes compared to the rhetoric he’d employ once he was elected.

 

 

 

 

Worst President Ever. Or at least since that racist Woodrow Wilson.

That can't be true, Woodrow was a Progressive.

[Rob's House]

I refuse to buy into the liberal-imposed false choice that I must endorse or denounce Trump.

 

I also reject the idea that an endorsement of Trump is an endorsement of everything he says.

[Tiberius]

That can't be true, Woodrow was a Progressive.

The vast majority of Progressives are against racism. Conservatives, not so much

[TakeYouToTasker]

The vast majority of Progressives are against racism. Conservatives, not so much

Source?

[Tiberius]

Source?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/

[B-Man]

It's a good thing it was on twitter......................otherwise how would anybody know

 

it's not like they're watching........

 

 

VoxVerified account ‏@voxdotcom 23m23 minutes ago

 

Jon Stewart crashed Stephen Colbert's Late Show. Together they made fun of Donald Trump

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9891842/stewart-colbert-trump?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter … pic.twitter.com/MIpDPZV7cd

[Deranged Rhino]

[Chef Jim]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/

 

I guess this is better than the actual source. I don't know about you guys but the last thing I want to see is a picture of gator's ass.

Source?

 

And I guess he also has a bizarre definition of the term vast majority.

[TakeYouToTasker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-top-ted-cruz-second-hillary-clinton-over-bernie-sanders/

Try again.

[Tiberius]

Try again.

How about this?

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

 

Out of curiosity, when did southern voters stop voting for racist politicians?

[TakeYouToTasker]

How about this?

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

 

Out of curiosity, when did southern voters stop voting for racist politicians?

Anything other than puff pieces which start with a conclusion, and then dig to build a story by cherry picking, and referencing nearly 40 year old electoral strategy?

Edited December 11, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

Anything other than puff pieces which start with a conclusion, and then dig to build a story by cherry picking, and referencing nearly 40 year old electoral strategy?

Actually it was an admission.

[B-Man]

Anything other than puff pieces which start with a conclusion, and then dig to build a story by cherry picking, and referencing nearly 40 year old electoral strategy?

 

 

Actually TYTT, the whole reference is a Liberal myth.

 

I always knew that someone here would fall into it..........it's certainly no surprise that it is someone as simple as Gator.

 

Here is a response to the Nation's nonsense, its lengthly (not for you, but for Gator)

 

No "admission" simply an old example of what is all too commonplace today, cherry picking a quote.......

 

I will posts parts, please read the whole thing.

 

What Did Lee Atwater Really Say?

 

FTA:

 

 

The audiotape is of a conversation between Lee Atwater and two men: Professor Alexander Lamis, who first quoted the now-famous paragraph in a book, and a second man named Saul. It is 41 minutes long, with occasional interruptions. The quality is sometimes poor, but it is generally easy to make out. The subject of the interview was contemporary politics in the South, and the main point that Atwater made is that race is no longer a major issue in Southern elections:

 

Atwater explained that the “Southern strategy” of the 1970s included, in his view, coded racism, but that there was no racial element in Reagan’s 1980 campaign:

So what you have is two things happening that totally washed away the Southern strategy, the Harry Dent type Southern strategy, and that is, that whole strategy was based, although it was more sophisticated than a Bilbo or a George Wallace, it was nevertheless based on coded racism. The whole thing, busing, we want a Supreme Court judge that won’t have busing, anything you look at can be traced back to the issue [of race], in the old southern strategy. It was not done in a blatantly discriminatory way.

But Rea

gan did not have to do a southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was was not a dominant issue. And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been, quote, southern issues since way back in the sixties. So

Reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I’ll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.

 

 

So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him. Lamis, however, wanted to find some role, even if a modest one, for race:

 

 

{snip}

 

At this point, Atwater interrupted and gave his famous answer, portions of which have been widely quoted

 

…you start out in 1954 by saying n****r, n****r, n****r. By 1968 you can’t say n****r, that hurts, there’s a backlash, so you say stuff like forced busing, states rights and all that stuff. And you’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all of these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it, I’m not saying it.

 

 

 

This last statement is key, but is never quoted by liberals. Atwater has already said several times during the interview that race is no longer a significant element in Southern politics. Here, he specifically disclaims agreement with the proposition that Reagan’s policy positions contained a subconscious appeal to racial prejudice. That was Professor Lamis’s suggestion, not his.

 

But he goes on to make the argument that even if some voters draw a subconscious connection between, say, cutting the food stamp program and race, the absence of any specifically racial appeal shows what a minor factor race has become in Southern politics

 

 

 

MUCH MORE AT THE LINK: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php

[TakeYouToTasker]

Actually it was an admission.

It wasn't an admission. As I said, and B-Man provided links to, your puff piece cherry picks in order to cast falsehoods as the truth.

 

Atwood never said what your link says that he said.

[Chef Jim]

It wasn't an admission. As I said, and B-Man provided links to, your puff piece cherry picks in order to cast falsehoods as the truth.

 

Atwood never said what your link says that he said.

 

No, no, no. It was an admission that he's making **** up again and sharpening his trolling tools.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Actually TYTT, the whole reference is a Liberal myth.

 

I always knew that someone here would fall into it..........it's certainly no surprise that it is someone as simple as Gator.

 

Here is a response to the Nation's nonsense, its lengthly (not for you, but for Gator)

 

No "admission" simply an old example of what is all too commonplace today, cherry picking a quote.......

 

I will posts parts, please read the whole thing.

 

What Did Lee Atwater Really Say?

 

FTA:

 

 

The audiotape is of a conversation between Lee Atwater and two men: Professor Alexander Lamis, who first quoted the now-famous paragraph in a book, and a second man named Saul. It is 41 minutes long, with occasional interruptions. The quality is sometimes poor, but it is generally easy to make out. The subject of the interview was contemporary politics in the South, and the main point that Atwater made is that race is no longer a major issue in Southern elections:

 

Atwater explained that the “Southern strategy” of the 1970s included, in his view, coded racism, but that there was no racial element in Reagan’s 1980 campaign:

So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him. Lamis, however, wanted to find some role, even if a modest one, for race:

 

 

{snip}

 

At this point, Atwater interrupted and gave his famous answer, portions of which have been widely quoted

 

 

 

This last statement is key, but is never quoted by liberals. Atwater has already said several times during the interview that race is no longer a significant element in Southern politics. Here, he specifically disclaims agreement with the proposition that Reagan’s policy positions contained a subconscious appeal to racial prejudice. That was Professor Lamis’s suggestion, not his.

 

But he goes on to make the argument that even if some voters draw a subconscious connection between, say, cutting the food stamp program and race, the absence of any specifically racial appeal shows what a minor factor race has become in Southern politics

 

 

 

MUCH MORE AT THE LINK: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php

Sure, Conservatives are just anti-government programs that help the poor, but not the government programs that help the older white voters. And who was and still is poor since Jim Crow became illegal?

 

The reaction against Obamacare is the same thing. Dog whistle

 

Reagan starting his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, the very place where the civil right workers were murdered and blathering on about states rights

It wasn't an admission. As I said, and B-Man provided links to, your puff piece cherry picks in order to cast falsehoods as the truth.

 

Atwood never said what your link says that he said.

No way, its how it happened

[DC Tom]

Sure, Conservatives are just anti-government programs that help the poor, but not the government programs that help the older white voters. And who was and still is poor since Jim Crow became illegal?

 

The reaction against Obamacare is the same thing. Dog whistle

 

Reagan starting his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, the very place where the civil right workers were murdered and blathering on about states rights

No way, its how it happened

 

Who was and is still poor since the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

Your trolling is getting very lazy.

[B-Man]

David Bernstein, January 18, 2008 at 9:19pm

Ronald Reagan and "States' Rights":

It has somehow become part of conventional wisdom that Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 presidential campaign with a blatant appeal to southern racism by engaging in a vigorous defense of "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. I've read it myself so often I was sure that it was true.

Out of curiosity, I looked up contemporary articles on Nexis, because I wondered why I don't remember this being much more controversial at the time. I discovered that the conventional story has a kernel of truth, but is wrong in [many of] its details.

 

I was going to blog about this in detail, but see that James Taranto and David Brooks [and Bruce Bartlett] already beat me to it, pointing out, among other things, that Reagan mentioned "states' rights" only once in the speech, in a reference to federalism in economic policy, not race [the speech is available in MP3 here;

 

interestingly, contrary to what I've always heard, was Reagan's typical "welfare queen" speech, when he discusses welfare he suggests that people on welfare don't want to be on it, want to work and join the economic mainstream, but are stifled by the bureaucracy acting in its own interest];

 

that Reagan almost skipped the speech entirely; and that the speech was given at a county fair near, but not in, Philadelphia; and that he gave a speech the next day to the Urban League, which hardly suggests that this was the day his campaign intended to start a race-related controversy.

 

 

A few things Taranto doesn't mention, that Nexis reveals: Reagan gave this speech on August 3, 1980, the week after the Republican convention, but at the time, no one thought of this as the "launch" of Reagan's campaign, because the Democratic convention was yet to come. This was considered the slow season before the campaign really started on Labor Day

 

But the prevalent idea that Reagan's campaign marked a turning point in American history because he overtly appealed to southern racists by launching his campaign with a "states' rights speech" in Philadelphia, Mississppi, just isn't right.

 

Ironically, it was Carter, not Reagan, who launched his 1980 campaign in a town deeply associated with racism (though Carter had no discernable racist intent in doing so).

 

More at the link:

 

 

.