What it's actually a coup?

[wdmso]

Ginni Thomas corresponded with John Eastman, sources in Jan. 6 House investigation

The emails show that Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election were more extensive than previously known,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

The Meadows texts are as bad as you might imagine-and they change 1/6 to a concerted effort by dozens of MAGA public officials, advisers, etc. And remember: these are just the initial ones that his lawyer was willing to disclose to J6C. The balance must be mind-bending
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

The MAGA cult members still holding office and some appointed to positions of power aren’t looking forward to the release of the report and I hope there are several referrals, even if the DOJ doesn’t move to charge them.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The MAGA cult members still holding office and some appointed to positions of power aren’t looking forward to the release of the report and I hope there are several referrals, even if the DOJ doesn’t move to charge them.

It's telling when one of the GOP House Rep's said his only regret was that he spelled 'Martial' Law wrong...

[PaulS]

What makes Rs so susceptible to wild conspiracy theories?

Newly revealed text messages from former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows' phone show that former Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was a true believer in the false conspiracy theory that Antifa was really behind the January 6th Capitol riots.

As reported by Talking Points Memo, Gohmert sent Meadows a text message on January 8th, two days after the assault on the Capitol, pushing the Trump chief of staff to get the Department of Justice involved in an investigation to uncover the purported truth about the riots.

"Constitutional loyal DOJ personnel have 11 days to prove the truth: Antifa led the breach of the Capitol," Gohmert wrote to Meadows. "If the evidence is not shown to the public in 11 days, then it will be subverted & the false narrative will likely be the Trump legacy that DT & his loyal supporters under his urging attacked the Capitol. It was a brilliant leftist op, but it's got to be exposed by DOJ quick."

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What makes Rs so susceptible to wild conspiracy theories?"

Well you could ask Jim, but his answer would be, tell me what conspiracy theories I believe…….I’ll wait. Or ask RR, but then you would be told to go F yourself. There are others who mask it in the belief the left deep state controls everything in order to maintain power, believing the 6th was necessary to stop them, yet still wrapping themselves in their belief in the constitution.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well you could ask Jim, but his answer would be, tell me what conspiracy theories I believe…….I’ll wait. Or ask RR, but then you would be told to go F yourself. There are others who mask it in the belief the left deep state controls everything in order to maintain power, believing the 6th was necessary to stop them, yet still wrapping themselves in their belief in the constitution.

so if you accuse me of believing in crazy conspiracy theories, it’s not valid for me to ask you which crazy theories i agree with? That’s not a legitimate question?

democrats believe republicans hate women, and that the world was supposed to have come to
an end already, and that hits a great idea for men to share bathrooms with women, to compete physically with women, that the solution to crime is fewer cops, that everything is about race, etc.

Ample craziness all around. No shortage on the right for sure. i never claimed otherwise. All i claim is that there are more good public policy ideas in the right. Not that there are better people on the right, or smarter people. You guys are the ones making that claim.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if you accuse me of believing in crazy conspiracy theories, it’s not valid for me to ask you which crazy theories i agree with? That’s not a legitimate question?

democrats believe republicans hate women, and that the world was supposed to have come to
an end already, and that hits a great idea for men to share bathrooms with women, to compete physically with women, that the solution to crime is fewer cops, that everything is about race, etc.

Ample craziness all around. No shortage on the right for sure. i never claimed otherwise. All i claim is that there are more good public policy ideas in the right. Not that there are better people on the right, or smarter people. You guys are the ones making that claim.

As usual you claim right wing rhetoric to be truth.
But when you’re a member of the party of victims and insurrectionists what else would anyone expect.
It’s been fun watching watching your ilk cycle from blaming first Antifa, then the FBI for the insurrection they planned.

Much of what has happened to the GOP has nothing to do with politics. It’s the story of a voluntary association of people who decided to not only tolerate petty viciousness but value it. Graciousness & kindness are seen as weakness. It’s not new or interesting. It’s just a choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As usual you claim right wing rhetoric to be truth.
But when you’re a member of the party of victims and insurrectionists what else would anyone expect.
It’s been fun watching watching your ilk cycle from blaming first Antifa, then the FBI for the insurrection they planned.

Much of what has happened to the GOP has nothing to do with politics. It’s the story of a voluntary association of people who decided to not only tolerate petty viciousness but value it. Graciousness & kindness are seen as weakness. It’s not new or interesting. It’s just a choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"you’re a member of the party of victims and insurrectionists what else would anyone expect."

When you ignore every violent protect the left has ever engaged in, I guess the landscape looks pretty one-sided. but the fact is, in 2016, a small number of house democrats sought to overturn the election, because they didn't like that they had lost. Just about every violent, politically-motivated riot in the last 35 years, up until January 6th, was initiated by the left. Those are facts whether you happen to like them or not.

"It’s the story of a voluntary association of people who decided to not only tolerate petty viciousness but value it. "

It's the story of a party that grew tired of showing up with boxing gloves when the democrats were wearing brass knuckles, so we finally nominated a guy who was better at fighting dirty than the left. You're not used to Republicans fighting back (Bush, McCain, Romney all sat there smiling as the left told the world they were evil, racist, hated women, etc). You got used to Republicans who'd take the cheap shots. Well those days are gone. We went too far (in my opinion) with Trump, we need someone who will fight back but do it with civility and maturity, which is way beyond Trumps abilities. In any event, he'll be gone from the scene no later than 2024. The up-and-comers (Desantis, Cotton, Scott, Crenshaw, Noem, Haley) are nothing like Trump.

Pete, when you ignore everything unethical the left has ever done, and you ignore everything good that the right has ever done, that makes the left look a lot better than the right. But it's not a sane way to compare the 2 sides.

Look at the number or elected offices currently held by each party. America obviously isn't buying what you're selling.

[Pete F.]

Tourists, huh?

On Dec. 20, 2020, a 21-year-old intelligence analyst went online to search for local Washington, D.C., fishing holes and stumbled upon the blueprint of a plot to storm the Capitol and execute members of Congress and law enforcement officers to prevent the certification of electoral votes to make Joe Biden the next president.

The domestic terrorism analyst with the Department of Homeland Security saw a link to a website where people “actively at that moment were discussing the commission of acts of terroristic violence and the violent overthrow of the government of the United States,” according to the analyst’s written account later provided to investigators.

There the analyst “witnessed upwards of 500 pages worth of potential threats to national security,” including people urging others — and discussing how — to smuggle illegal weapons into the nation’s capital and avoid detection by law enforcement. The DHS intelligence analyst also saw “discussion references of overthrowing the US Government by force/sparking a second civil war, and veiled credible threats of violence toward other US persons who were perceived enemies, specifically Members of Congress and other federal employees.”

“Like so many Americans l watched the events of January 6th, 2021 transpire — shocked, scared, and horrified; but for me there was a deeper connection to the event, I was one of the DHS intelligence officials charged with trying to prevent that day’s violence,” the intelligence analyst wrote in a four-page letter provided to inspector general investigators. Yahoo News obtained a copy of this letter and the unredacted version of the final inspector general investigative report documenting this analyst’s efforts and dozens of credible threats that DHS saw, but did not act on, at the time.

What started as a literal fishing expedition turned into a failed 16-day effort to sound the alarm and push the various parts of the DHS intelligence apparatus into action. The office created in the wake of 9/11 to share intelligence more broadly and prevent another catastrophic attack failed to share its intelligence ahead of the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot.

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-an-...190922453.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Just about every violent, politically-motivated riot in the last 35 years, up until January 6th, was initiated by the left. Those are facts

Jim this is why you’re labeled a conspiracy theorist

You love to make. Comparisons that don’t exist outside your and others bubble


You can’t even be honest with what happens on Jan 6th and prior by the GOP and their supporters

You avoid actual history why?

in 1965. On March 7, 1965, when then-25-year-old activist John Lewis led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama and faced brutal attacks by oncoming state troopers, footage of the violence dogs and fire hoses collectively shocked the nation and galvanized the fight against racial injustice.

Or the Rodney king Riots

But you’ll suggest this was violent, politically-motivated riot caused by the left .. revisionist history runs rampant thru today’s GOP White Victim hood
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Just about every violent, politically-motivated riot in the last 35 years, up until January 6th, was initiated by the left. Those are facts

Jim this is why you’re labeled a conspiracy theorist

You love to make. Comparisons that don’t exist outside your and others bubble


You can’t even be honest with what happens on Jan 6th and prior by the GOP and their supporters

You avoid actual history why?

in 1965. On March 7, 1965, when then-25-year-old activist John Lewis led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama and faced brutal attacks by oncoming state troopers, footage of the violence dogs and fire hoses collectively shocked the nation and galvanized the fight against racial injustice.

Or the Rodney king Riots

But you’ll suggest this was violent, politically-motivated riot caused by the left .. revisionist history runs rampant thru today’s GOP White Victim hood
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 1965, the governor of Alabama was named George Wallace. He was a Democrat, like the majority of Americans who advocated for segregation.

What planet do you live on, exactly?

I said "just about every" political riot has been initiated by the left. That's obviously true.

To argue with me, you're saying (I think?) that the southern segregationists were republicans? Have you been drinking fentanyl?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In 1965, the governor of Alabama was named George Wallace. He was a Democrat, like the majority of Americans who advocated for segregation.

What planet do you live on, exactly?

I said "just about every" political riot has been initiated by the left. That's obviously true.

To argue with me, you're saying (I think?) that the southern segregationists were republicans? Have you been drinking fentanyl?

Once again you show your lack of understanding of political history, never mind basic math.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Once again you show your lack of understanding of political history, never mind basic math.

Were the southern segregationists of the 1960s democrats or republicans? Wayne said Geprge Wallace was a republican, I corrected him, and that means I am the one who doesn't understand history. Gotcha.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Were the southern segregationists of the 1960s democrats or republicans? Wayne said Geprge Wallace was a republican, I corrected him, and that means I am the one who doesn't understand history. Gotcha.

And you’re claiming George Wallace was on the left.
So yes you don’t understand political history.
Next you’ll be claiming Lee Atwater was a wacko RINO.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In 1965, the governor of Alabama was named George Wallace. He was a Democrat, like the majority of Americans who advocated for segregation.

What planet do you live on, exactly?

I said "just about every" political riot has been initiated by the left. That's obviously true.

To argue with me, you're saying (I think?) that the southern segregationists were republicans? Have you been drinking fentanyl?

In 1965, the governor of Alabama was named George Wallace. He was a Democrat


Like I said Jim your willingness to ignore history is astounding

And your attempt to suggest that was your point is comical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Look at the number or elected offices currently held by each party. America obviously isn't buying what you're selling.

Sorry Jim your miss informed

Democrats now govern more Americans at the state level than Republicans

And democrats have always represented more Americans in congress

Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.

Congress’s upper house is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California, even though California has more than 68 times as many people as Wyoming.

If the United States chose its leaders in free and fair elections, Republicans would be firmly out of power.

But keep convincing yourself republicans are popular
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Look at the number or elected offices currently held by each party. America obviously isn't buying what you're selling.

Sorry Jim your miss informed

Democrats now govern more Americans at the state level than Republicans

And democrats have always represented more Americans in congress

Democratic half will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.

Congress’s upper house is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California, even though California has more than 68 times as many people as Wyoming.

If the United States chose its leaders in free and fair elections, Republicans would be firmly out of power.

But keep convincing yourself republicans are popular
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sorry Jim your miss informed "

No, I'm not misinformed, I said to look at the number of elected offices help by each party. It's very, very evenly split. Suggesting Americans don't view the GOP the way you and Pete do.

"Congress’s upper house is malapportioned to give small states like Wyoming exactly as many senators as large states like California, even though California has more than 68 times as many people as Wyoming."

I'm aware. Thanks for the scoop.

"If the United States chose its leaders in free and fair elections, Republicans would be firmly out of power campaign differently, centered around the popular vote."

Fixed it for you. It's not the GOPs fault, that they understand electoral realities better than democrats. If it was switched to a popular vote, the GOP would campaign that way. Today, there's no reason for the GOP to waste resources in LA and NYC.

The GOP also controls a healthy majority of state governorships and state legislatures (you conveniently left that out). Why is that?

[wdmso]

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties of today are like their 19th century forebearers. By the late 1960s, the national Democratic Party had abandoned its former support for legal segregation and enjoyed strong support from Black voters, while Republicans had embraced a white backlash to voting and civil rights to build their party in the South.

One has to wrap your mind around the fact parties evolve, and they change, and they have points of view and they’re not same in one century as they are in another,”

But not you Jim you can’t wrap your mind around such a simplistic concept


President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. This led to heavy opposition from Southern Democrats.
Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many White southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Proud Boys members 'intend to subpoena' Donald Trump at their seditious conspiracy trial
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Proud Boys members 'intend to subpoena' Donald Trump at their seditious conspiracy trial
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

those 3 Marines are about to at a minimum Get a Bad conduct discharge

Dishonorable discharge or sedition charge would be better

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties of today are like their 19th century forebearers. By the late 1960s, the national Democratic Party had abandoned its former support for legal segregation and enjoyed strong support from Black voters, while Republicans had embraced a white backlash to voting and civil rights to build their party in the South.

One has to wrap your mind around the fact parties evolve, and they change, and they have points of view and they’re not same in one century as they are in another,”

But not you Jim you can’t wrap your mind around such a simplistic concept


President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. This led to heavy opposition from Southern Democrats.
Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many White southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Many scholars" have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to the issue of preserving States Rights. And there's this:

During his years as vice president under Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon sought to ensure minorities — especially African Americans — weren’t discriminated against in federal contracts. He also worked with Congress to spearhead the Civil Rights Act of 1957, sweeping legislation and a precursor to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As President, Nixon sought to expand economic opportunities for African Americans by ending discrimination in the work place, through the endowment of black colleges with federal funds, and helping them find meaningful employment through job assistance programs, and promotion of entrepreneurship — an initiative called “Black Capitalism.”

In 1970, Nixon sought to end the decades old and egregious tradition of segregated schools for black and white children throughout the nation, predominantly in the Southern states.

Nixon was VP when the Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice. In 1954, he integrated Little Rock’s Central High School to enforce the 1954 unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and overturned a half century of Court precedent which stated otherwise.

As VP, Nixon chaired a committee to combat discrimination among contractors retained by the Federal Government. He used his chair to meet and forge relationships with Civil Rights leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, and NAACP director Roy Wilkins; lobby companies to end discrimination; encourage African American ownership of businesses and employment to executive positions.

During his second term as vice president, Nixon shepherded through Congress the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first Civil Rights legislation since reconstruction. The 1957 legislation empowered the Justice Department to prosecute Civil Rights cases through a newly established Civil Rights Division, and allowed federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions when the citizens’ right to vote was being obstructed.

Nixon’s role proved to be crucial in Congress. He was vocal about the administration’s Civil Rights goals, and serving in his Constitutional role as President of the U.S. Senate, he helped lead the effort to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

Though Southern Democrats opposed and blocked provisions that would give the Justice Department authority to protect broad Constitutional rights including school desegregation, and voting rights violations — Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. told Vice President Nixon that it was “much better than no bill at all… we can at least be sure that we are moving steadily ahead.”

King closed the August 1957 letter, writing, “Let me say before closing how deeply grateful all people of goodwill are to you for your assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality.”

In an August 1957 constituent letter, Vice President Nixon expressed disappointment that the Senate had watered down the original version of the Civil Rights bill. However, he did express hope, writing “I am convinced that we shall continue to make real progress toward our goal of guaranteeing rights for every American.”

Some historians say that by the time Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, the nation was its most divided since the Civil War.

One of the pressing issues of Nixon’s first administration was school desegregation. Despite the unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1954) and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, 80 percent of schools remained segregated throughout the nation’s South.

In 1969, in another unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided in Alexander v. Holmes County, “to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter unitary schools.”

The Nixon administration chose to adopt the policy position of a unitary school system.
The Nixon administration’s position was to enforce the Brown decision that integration “should take place with all deliberate speed”.

In fall 1969, 600,000 blacks attended desegregated schools in the South; one year later 3 million had been integrated. By percentage in 1968, nearly 70 percent of black children were segregated from their white peers; by the end of Nixon’s first term it was just 8 percent.

President Nixon signed the Voting Rights Act of 1970, nationalizing the 1965 legislation and expanding its reach to northern states.

The Nixon administration ended discrimination in companies and labor unions that received federal contracts, and set guidelines and goals for affirmative action hiring for African Americans. The policy, known as the Philadelphia Plan (from where it originated) — initially included government contracts in excess of $500,000 in the construction trade, and later expanded to include contracts of $50,000 or more in all areas of industry, and quotas for women.

President Nixon signed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) greater power to enforce against workplace discrimination. Between 1969 and 1972, the EEOC staff had increased from 359 to 1,640 and budget from 13.2 million to $29 million.

Another policy pillar of the Nixon administration was expanding education and economic opportunities for African Americans. To lead this initiative, the President appointed Robert J. Brown, an African American business leader, as a White House special assistant.

Following a meeting with the presidents of black colleges, arranged by Brown, Nixon promised more than $100 million in federal funds for black colleges.

Government assistance to black owned business enterprises also more than doubled. Federal purchases increased from $13 million to $142 million from 1969 to 1971, and total revenues from black businesses jumped from $4.5 billion in 1968 to $7.26 billion in 1972. By 1974, two-thirds of the 100 largest black enterprises had been started during the Nixon administration.

Why would racist southern whites switch their party allegiance for this kind of Republicanism? Especially when their racist federal politicians, with the exeption of one, Strom Thurmond, did not switch parties and remained in the Democrat Party.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Many scholars" have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to the issue of preserving States Rights. And there's this:

During his years as vice president under Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon sought to ensure minorities — especially African Americans — weren’t discriminated against in federal contracts. He also worked with Congress to spearhead the Civil Rights Act of 1957, sweeping legislation and a precursor to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

As President, Nixon sought to expand economic opportunities for African Americans by ending discrimination in the work place, through the endowment of black colleges with federal funds, and helping them find meaningful employment through job assistance programs, and promotion of entrepreneurship — an initiative called “Black Capitalism.”

In 1970, Nixon sought to end the decades old and egregious tradition of segregated schools for black and white children throughout the nation, predominantly in the Southern states.

Nixon was VP when the Eisenhower administration accomplished much in the area of Civil Rights. It was President Eisenhower who integrated the armed forces, promoted more blacks into the federal bureaucracy than his predecessors, and appointed federal judges, and lawyers in his justice department, who supported racial justice. In 1954, he integrated Little Rock’s Central High School to enforce the 1954 unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which held that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” and overturned a half century of Court precedent which stated otherwise.

As VP, Nixon chaired a committee to combat discrimination among contractors retained by the Federal Government. He used his chair to meet and forge relationships with Civil Rights leaders including Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, and NAACP director Roy Wilkins; lobby companies to end discrimination; encourage African American ownership of businesses and employment to executive positions.

During his second term as vice president, Nixon shepherded through Congress the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first Civil Rights legislation since reconstruction. The 1957 legislation empowered the Justice Department to prosecute Civil Rights cases through a newly established Civil Rights Division, and allowed federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions when the citizens’ right to vote was being obstructed.

Nixon’s role proved to be crucial in Congress. He was vocal about the administration’s Civil Rights goals, and serving in his Constitutional role as President of the U.S. Senate, he helped lead the effort to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

Though Southern Democrats opposed and blocked provisions that would give the Justice Department authority to protect broad Constitutional rights including school desegregation, and voting rights violations — Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. told Vice President Nixon that it was “much better than no bill at all… we can at least be sure that we are moving steadily ahead.”

King closed the August 1957 letter, writing, “Let me say before closing how deeply grateful all people of goodwill are to you for your assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality.”

In an August 1957 constituent letter, Vice President Nixon expressed disappointment that the Senate had watered down the original version of the Civil Rights bill. However, he did express hope, writing “I am convinced that we shall continue to make real progress toward our goal of guaranteeing rights for every American.”

Some historians say that by the time Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, the nation was its most divided since the Civil War.

One of the pressing issues of Nixon’s first administration was school desegregation. Despite the unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1954) and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, 80 percent of schools remained segregated throughout the nation’s South.

In 1969, in another unanimous decision, the Supreme Court decided in Alexander v. Holmes County, “to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter unitary schools.”

The Nixon administration chose to adopt the policy position of a unitary school system.
The Nixon administration’s position was to enforce the Brown decision that integration “should take place with all deliberate speed”.

In fall 1969, 600,000 blacks attended desegregated schools in the South; one year later 3 million had been integrated. By percentage in 1968, nearly 70 percent of black children were segregated from their white peers; by the end of Nixon’s first term it was just 8 percent.

President Nixon signed the Voting Rights Act of 1970, nationalizing the 1965 legislation and expanding its reach to northern states.

The Nixon administration ended discrimination in companies and labor unions that received federal contracts, and set guidelines and goals for affirmative action hiring for African Americans. The policy, known as the Philadelphia Plan (from where it originated) — initially included government contracts in excess of $500,000 in the construction trade, and later expanded to include contracts of $50,000 or more in all areas of industry, and quotas for women.

President Nixon signed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 giving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) greater power to enforce against workplace discrimination. Between 1969 and 1972, the EEOC staff had increased from 359 to 1,640 and budget from 13.2 million to $29 million.

Another policy pillar of the Nixon administration was expanding education and economic opportunities for African Americans. To lead this initiative, the President appointed Robert J. Brown, an African American business leader, as a White House special assistant.

Following a meeting with the presidents of black colleges, arranged by Brown, Nixon promised more than $100 million in federal funds for black colleges.

Government assistance to black owned business enterprises also more than doubled. Federal purchases increased from $13 million to $142 million from 1969 to 1971, and total revenues from black businesses jumped from $4.5 billion in 1968 to $7.26 billion in 1972. By 1974, two-thirds of the 100 largest black enterprises had been started during the Nixon administration.

Why would racist southern whites switch their party allegiance for this kind of Republicanism? Especially when their racist federal politicians, with the exeption of one, Strom Thurmond, did not switch parties and remained in the Democrat Party.

Listening to your song and dance one would think all blacks would be Republicans, but they’re not.

Maybe they saw through the Republican baloney

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Listening to your song and dance one would think all blacks would be Republicans, but they’re not.

Facts, not song and dance. Facts that belie the notion that there was a big "switch" where Republicans switched into racist white Southerners. That is Propaganda.

Maybe they saw through the Republican baloney

It was not baloney. It was facts. The "big switch" is propagandistic baloney.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the South became less racist when it became Republican--when the "big switch" baloney supposedly happened.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And the South became less racist when it became Republican--when the "big switch" baloney supposedly happened.

Have you seen a picture of Republican members of Congress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Have you seen a picture of Republican members of Congress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those white guys done good. Oh, I forgot, you believe white people are racists.

[PaulS]

Boebert makes my head spin:

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski strongly rejected Rep. Lauren Boebert's (R-CO) complaint about Capitol rioters being unarmed during the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The Colorado Republican clashed with Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee over a proposed ban on members carrying guns in the hearing room, and the "Morning Joe" co-host was astonished that Boebert used the attack on the U.S. Capitol -- which she foreshadowed that morning on Twitter -- as justification to arm herself in Congress.

"It was the first time in many, many years that I have been unprotected," Boebert told the committee. "I was disarmed, not unarmed, disarmed, because I was not allowed to possess my firearm."

Boebert was suggesting she wanted to shoot the rioters who were coming to disrupt the election that she wanted overturned.

[Got Stripers]

Trump probably didn’t sleep well last night after finding out Pence has been subpoenaed, they have been slowly getting to the last couple pieces of the puzzle, the big question remains; will they finally charge Trump. If I were Pence I would happily throw Trump under the buss.