Elons Little Plan

Bagginski said:

Then STOP ASSUMING, *duh*…

I know it’s popular with the anti-democratic party to pretend that the Dixiecrats (a passel of hard-core racist southern politicians) *STILL* dominate the Democratic Party - to pretend that Nixon didn’t *invite* them into the Republican Party in ‘67-‘68 (on the advice of historian Kevin Phillips, who was the one who noticed that the Dixiecrats *always* voted w/ Republicans (especially on “racial issues”) & advised Nixon of the ‘Southern strategy’).

I know it’s also popular among the “GOP” to pretend that Lee Atwater *wasn’t* an old-school racist (he was), that he was never the Gypper’s campaign advisor (he was) or the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (he was), and that he never said:

So, the question is, are you honestly, ignorantly wrong about the “GOP” & racism? Or are you just a willfully corrupt liar?

A little ACTUAL history might disturb you, but it seems like you need it. Fortunately, your assumption only makes an ass out of *you*.

Click to expand...

And now we are brandishing N-bombs to somehow flex moral superiority? Pretty sure there's no need for that.

Just to be clear, I'm not leading the conversation here. I agreed that the Democratic party hasn't changed and did not present the idea, look back at it.

So here we are for some reason, so let's look at actual history at you put it.

Of the 1500+ racist "Dixiecrats" only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic party for the GOP. That's less than 1%.

I'm not exactly sure what point you could attempt to make with numbers like that. There seems to be a trend to just emote things into existence and you seem to be doing just that.

ActionianJacksonian said:

And now we are brandishing N-bombs to somehow flex moral superiority? Pretty sure there's no need for that.

Just to be clear, I'm not leading the conversation here. I agreed that the Democratic party hasn't changed and did not present the idea, look back at it.

So here we are for some reason, so let's look at actual history at you put it.

Of the 1500+ racist "Dixiecrats" only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic party for the GOP. That's less than 1%.

I'm not exactly sure what point you could attempt to make with numbers like that. There seems to be a trend to just emote things into existence and you seem to be doing just that.

Click to expand...

Too funny how trolls try to pretend like new people that run in those areas after the Democrats who ran on the racist agendas changed the laws to help Republican gerrymandering retired and let the next generation of nepotistic puppets win their seats.

Even in some states it wasn't until later that the racist scam needed to switch over to Republican too. Just look at Georgia, it wasn't until after Fox News started it's campaign to push to hard Republican spin that they needed to switch it up.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/what-has-trump-done-to-this-country.1018837/post-16016902

On the way out, gerrymander the crap out of the place, and purge voter rolls to make it harder for the people who would vote for the Democrats after they started legislating for 100% of the population.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/what-has-trump-done-to-this-country.1018837/post-16017115

schuylaar said:

Dude, we're laughing at you..you have no takers even though your putting your ass in our faces like some stripper looking for dollar bills.

Click to expand...

Seems dumb because that is not what I was doing. I was just outlining what it means to be an evil psychotic. Perhaps you sympathize?

Bagginski said:

Then STOP ASSUMING, *duh*…

I know it’s popular with the anti-democratic party to pretend that the Dixiecrats (a passel of hard-core racist southern politicians) *STILL* dominate the Democratic Party - to pretend that Nixon didn’t *invite* them into the Republican Party in ‘67-‘68 (on the advice of historian Kevin Phillips, who was the one who noticed that the Dixiecrats *always* voted w/ Republicans (especially on “racial issues”) & advised Nixon of the ‘Southern strategy’).

I know it’s also popular among the “GOP” to pretend that Lee Atwater *wasn’t* an old-school racist (he was), that he was never the Gypper’s campaign advisor (he was) or the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (he was), and that he never said:

So, the question is, are you honestly, ignorantly wrong about the “GOP” & racism? Or are you just a willfully corrupt liar?

A little ACTUAL history might disturb you, but it seems like you need it. Fortunately, your assumption only makes an ass out of *you*.

Click to expand...

No wonder Dixicans refer to history from a hundred or more years ago to smear Democrats. The Republican Party has been awful these past few years. They don't want to defend clearly racist voter exclusion laws passed by Republicans recently.

conservative said:

Seems dumb because that is not what I was doing. I was just outlining what it means to be an evil psychotic.
.

Click to expand...

That wasn't what you were doing

Fogdog said:

That wasn't what you were doing

Click to expand...

lol k. School me brah.

ICGA said:

Dude luciferian sex cults are basically into fetishes that involve making Golden state killer porn and somatization of infants. They do "sex magic" that's supposed to hypnotise us using mesmerizing images of traumatizing sex acts. It's called trauma based mind controll.

Click to expand...

Sex magic has two sides, call it the good and the bad for the sake of argument. How susceptible you are to sexual imagery is centered in your self and how many batches you mix in a day. Anyone engaged in the act of sex is performing magic, the good and the bad is (sometimes literally) a different story.

ActionianJacksonian said:

And now we are brandishing N-bombs to somehow flex moral superiority? Pretty sure there's no need for that.

Click to expand...

Ooh, I’m bad for quoting *your* guy, huh?

”Race-neutral” virtually all-white Republicans don’t like being reminded, eh?
(not really, I’m pretty sure you’re not old enough to, y’know, *remember* any of this)

Lee Atwater is the man most responsible for the whitewash job you’re so proud of. Pretend they didn’t whitewash their already-white butts if you like - I suppose there’s a place for that on YT, but that rock you’re standing on is slippery. Pretend your guys aren’t and never have been the racists they’ve talked like & acted like for decades, but don’t expect anyone outside your frat-house to be impressed.

At least, not POSITIVELY impressed

Just to be clear, I'm not leading the conversation here. I agreed that the Democratic party hasn't changed and did not present the idea, look back at it.

Click to expand...

“hanimal” said:

Only if you don't know how to use a graph.

At best Musk is just another in the long line of spoiled rich white guys who got themselves radicalized in the last decade to think that everyone else moved and they stayed the same.

Click to expand...

I'm with ya, I really don't think the Democratic party has changed at all over the last 16 decades or so.

Click to expand...

You agreed with yourself: ”I know you are, but what am *I*?”

It worked better for Pee Wee, but he does comedy for a living (or did).

So here we are for some reason, so let's look at actual history at you put it.

Of the 1500+ racist "Dixiecrats" only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic party for the GOP. That's less than 1%.

Click to expand...

A distorted factoid in isolation isn’t “history”, it snt even evidence: it’s an assertion.

More accurate (and honest) to say that ALL the nationally-known Dixiecrat politicians who didn’t retire instead, went “Republican”; their staffs, their fundraisers, their county & state infrastructure went with them…as did their voting base…and except for those who have jumped ship on Chump’s watch (quite a large number, but maybe don’t try to count that high, ‘k?), they’ve been ‘on message’ (keeping up pretenses) ever since.

If we talk about renegades who weren’t ’official’ Dixiecrats but went with them, the number is far larger than 1500…or we’d never have hit the ‘culture wars’ stage in this country so hard and fast during the Reagan regime, and the “GOP” *might* not have slid so precipitously into the Dixiecrat briar patch.

I'm not exactly sure what point you could attempt to make with numbers like that. There seems to be a trend to just emote things into existence and you seem to be doing just that.

Click to expand...

Appearances can be deceiving; as for the “point”, I’m sure you can avoid it just fine without further input.

Go pretend you’re smart somewhere else

conservative said:

lol k. School me brah.

Click to expand...

Conservatives are like termites. They don't talk, they just do what their code tells them to do.

Your posts are just deflecting, they aren't informing or even responding to what others say. It's more like how termites communicate by farting than human discourse.

conservative said:

Seems dumb because that is not what I was doing. I was just outlining what it means to be an evil psychotic. Perhaps you sympathize?

Click to expand...

conservative said:

Not true. When you are an evil psychotic, all that matters is control. When your goal is domination, you have no end game other than power.

Bill Gates sure fooled you.

Click to expand...

Speaking of being fooled…try actually LOOKING UP “psychotic” (and “evil”) while you’re at it.

And since we’re on an educational topic, I’d love to know what you think ’conservatives’ are ’conserving’ (look that one up, too).

Oh: and read ALL the definitions for those words, please - after all, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

Bagginski said:

Speaking of being fooled…try actually LOOKING UP “psychotic” (and “evil”) while you’re at it.

And since we’re on an educational topic, I’d love to know what you think ’conservatives’ are ’conserving’ (look that one up, too).

Oh: and read ALL the definitions for those words, please - after all, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

Click to expand...

you know he won't, so i'll make it easier for him...

this, from the national institute for mental health
What is Psychosis?

The word psychosis is used to describe conditions that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. When someone becomes ill in this way it is called a psychotic episode. During a period of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disturbed and the individual may have difficulty understanding what is real and what is not. Symptoms of psychosis include delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear). Other symptoms include incoherent or nonsense speech, and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. A person in a psychotic episode may also experience depression, anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulty functioning overall.

so, like....when someone lies about losing an election, and invents alternate realities in which they won said election...and then substitutes that alternate, inaccurate reality for actual reality....that is psychotic...

adjective
adjective: evil

1. profoundly immoral and wicked.
   "his evil deeds"

noun: evil

1. profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
   "the world is stalked by relentless evil"

a manifestation of profound immorality and wickedness, especially in people's actions.
plural noun: evils

let's see...lying to people to get them to support you while you steal their money and plot to take over their government and install yourself as a despotic dictator with the power of life and death sounds pretty fucking evil to me.
telling lies about good people who are working on the election, who are then threatened by your delusional supporters, so that you can then use the situation to further your agenda of lies...that's fucking evil...
inciting a crowd to lynch a man who refuses to go along with your incompetent, evil plan...you tell me, evil or not evil?....

"conservatives" are supposed to be "conserving" the constitution, and the ideals therein...
that ALL men are created equal, with the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness

(please realize that i include women in "men" in this instance)
not just white men, or christian men, or republican men, or heterosexual men...but all men. it does not say "men born in America." it does not say "men of a certain faith" it does not say "men of a particular color" it does not say "men who support the same agenda that i support"...it says ALL MEN are created equal..
so the entire name "conservative" is not appropriate for those using it to describe themselves for the most part...they try to conserve nothing, they try ceaselessly to change everything in the constitution that does not facilitate their comfort level...the opposite of what a conservative would do.

Bagginski said:

Go pretend you’re smart somewhere else

Click to expand...

Lol, it's just standard neo nazi shit, right down to changing the topic and asking people polite questions about their interests.

It's like talking to Ben Shapiro.

ActionianJacksonian said:

And now we are brandishing N-bombs to somehow flex moral superiority? Pretty sure there's no need for that.

Just to be clear, I'm not leading the conversation here. I agreed that the Democratic party hasn't changed and did not present the idea, look back at it.

So here we are for some reason, so let's look at actual history at you put it.

Of the 1500+ racist "Dixiecrats" only Strom Thurmond and about a dozen others left the Democratic party for the GOP. That's less than 1%.

I'm not exactly sure what point you could attempt to make with numbers like that. There seems to be a trend to just emote things into existence and you seem to be doing just that.

Click to expand...

The Democratic party changed quite a bit with FDR and The New Deal. Prior to that, Democratics had not embraced "Democratic Socialism".

PJ Diaz said:

The Democratic party changed quite a bit with FDR and The New Deal. Prior to that, Democratics had not embraced "Democratic Socialism".

Click to expand...

Worth noting that progressivism *began* with Republican Teddy Roosevelt - who was disowned by the party in fairly short order…and not so long before the New Deal - which is little more than his cousin’s progressivist politics.

Bagginski said:

Ooh, I’m bad for quoting *your* guy, huh?

”Race-neutral” virtually all-white Republicans don’t like being reminded, eh?
(not really, I’m pretty sure you’re not old enough to, y’know, *remember* any of this)

Lee Atwater is the man most responsible for the whitewash job you’re so proud of. Pretend they didn’t whitewash their already-white butts if you like - I suppose there’s a place for that on YT, but that rock you’re standing on is slippery. Pretend your guys aren’t and never have been the racists they’ve talked like & acted like for decades, but don’t expect anyone outside your frat-house to be impressed.

At least, not POSITIVELY impressed

Click to expand...

sounds like a racist individual. That implicates me or mine how exactly? This part of the game you are playing here is for the children, anyone can do it. For example, Richard Spencer is *your* team because he voted with you. An assumption on my part, admittedly, but the point stands. But I honestly don't feel that attempting to drag you down like this elevates me in any way, so I refrain from it, because it's so trife.

So *that game* is for those having trouble with reality.

A distorted factoid in isolation isn’t “history”, it’s an assertion.

More accurate (and honest) to say that ALL the nationally-known Dixiecrat politicians who didn’t retire instead, went “Republican”; their staffs, their fundraisers, their county & state infrastructure went with them…as did their voting base…and except for those who have jumped ship on Chump’s watch (quite a large number, but maybe don’t try to count that high, ‘k?)

If we talk about renegades who weren’t ’official’ Dixiecrats but went with them, the number is far larger than 1500…or we’d never have hit the ‘culture wars’ stage in this country so hard and fast during the Reagan regime, and the “GOP” *might* not have slid so precipitously into the Dixiecrat briar patch.

Click to expand...

So here we go with a goalpost shift. When I say I don't think the party has changed much, *your team* jumps on the race card as you've done here, an assumption, as there are several similarities to draw that have nothing to do with race.

And so when you use your racial Trump card, you say your party has clean hands because the dixiecrats all went GOP. The facts bear out that more than 99% of all the 1500+ dixiecrats remained Democrats throughout their lengthy careers.

And so what you had was a Democrat party split, progressives and dixiecrats and you have just tried to brush off this history on the GOP to the ignorant. I'm not saying that it isn't effective, clearly it is.

So now your trump card argument shifts when it fails scrutiny, as it has, to the "unofficial dixiecrat renegades", which is invariably the popular vote and where this always leads. This again fails historical scrutiny when we see that the white vote steadily went GOP over time, peaking in the 80's as the country and Dixie areas becomes less racist and more industrial, and the black vote for democrats, *my vote* shifted from GOP in the 30's with the New Deal both decades away from any civil rights in 1964.

And this is all for what, to pretend *your team* is as pure as the driven snow. News for you friend: I'm sure you are as pure as powdered snow and I have no reason to think otherwise, despite *your* party choice, because you are an individual, and you vote your conscience for what you think is the good for us all because I've seen no evidence to the contrary, other than the fact you can't seem to afford others the same courtesy.

So maybe we can re-examine that Trump card of yours and recognize the doo-doo stank of hate that covers it and maybe stop handling is so much and getting it all over the linens and such.

Appearances can be deceiving; as for the “point”, I’m sure you can avoid it just fine without further input.

Go pretend you’re smart somewhere else

Click to expand...

Agreement at last, I knew we could. No further input

PJ Diaz said:

The Democratic party changed quite a bit with FDR and The New Deal. Prior to that, Democratics had not embraced "Democratic Socialism".

Click to expand...

I spent a bit of time with FDR's writings in a Federal Repository focused on the creation of social security and getting Americans to "trust" and to "deposit into these new accounts and we will have made progress".

Later I learned of all the writings back and forth of he and Benito Mussolini, a journalist, and their praise for each other as kindred spirits.

Fogdog said:

No wonder Dixicans refer to history from a hundred or more years ago to smear Democrats. The Republican Party has been awful these past few years. They don't want to defend clearly racist voter exclusion laws passed by Republicans recently.

Click to expand...

...but they *still* want to KEEP those vote-suppression laws - they just don’t want to talk about any details (‘cause that’s where they always get into trouble); big advantage of an obedient & emotionally fragile base - they never get any tough questions from the inside

ActionianJacksonian said:

I spent a bit of time with FDR's writings in a Federal Repository focused on the creation of social security and getting Americans to "trust" and to "deposit into these new accounts and we will have made progress".

Click to expand...

What did you read (any of them)? How much time did you have? Where’s the repository?

Did you see the recreation of Thomas Jefferson’s personal library at the Smithsonian? THAT was thrilling for me, honestly…it was strictly no-touchie, tho, which was a shame (understandable, but still…)

ActionianJacksonian said:

Later I learned of all the writings back and forth of he and Benito Mussolini, a journalist, and their praise for each other as kindred spirits.

Click to expand...

Did you read any of *those*?

Hitler was a big fan of Henry Ford and US Confederate slavery, too. Did you read anything that suggested Roosevelt was a big fan of Mussolini’s politics after he stopped being a journalist? The way your phrased that suggests you’ve only been told about FDR & pre-Duce, not that you’ve read “repository-quality” documentation on it