origins of the religious right

[civilwarbuff]

I edited something else. But nice try. Even taking that sentence out, I don't say "all", but "part", so again, nice try.

Yeah, I am sure you edited something else...but that is OK. I know what I am dealing with from here on out. We are done.

 

[J Cord]

Yeah, I am sure you edited something else...but that is OK. I know what I am dealing with from here on out. We are done.

I already knew. Bye

 

[redleghunter]

I think it applies, that some of the same dynamics are at play today, and how they are manifesting. I realize it is a change of subject, and I won't argue with you about your opinion, but do you agree or disagree that a significant part of Trump's base is made up of racists?

First you are making an assertion "Trump's base is made up of racists." What leads you to this conclusion?

A very broad brush which could be construed as racist in itself.

Edit: 'racist' is too strong a word to use here. The more appropriate term is bigoted.

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

[redleghunter]

Wow, I've only seen a few of your posts, and I've already got you correctly pegged. You are predictable

This is quite telling. There is a pot somewhere calling out to the kettle.

 

[J Cord]

First you are making an assertion "Trump's base is made up of racists." What leads you to this conclusion?

A very broad brush which could be construed as racist in itself.

I appreciate you answer, but could you please reread my post because I didn't make that assertion. I just had this discussion with civilwarbuff, he tried to say the same thing. I don't think "Trump's base is made up of racists".

I said "do you agree or disagree that a significant part of Trump's base is made up of racists?"

 

[redleghunter]

As for Trump? Honestly, from this far away, I can't see what the appeal is at all. What is he offering that is a positive contribution?

How this thread turned into a Trump thread is quite interesting.

 

[J Cord]

.

 

[J Cord]

How this thread turned into a Trump thread is quite interesting.

He is the modern representative of the religious right, and he courts racists, part of the origin of the religious right, so not really.

 

[Paidiske]

Is he religious in any meaningful way, or has he just claimed some sort of belief so as not to lose votes from devout citizens?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Is he religious in any meaningful way, or has he just claimed some sort of belief so as not to lose votes from devout citizens?

Well, he did refer to "Two" Corinthians in one of his addresses; I think that says alot by itself.

 

[J Cord]

Is he religious in any meaningful way, or has he just claimed some sort of belief so as not to lose votes from devout citizens?

Trump? My guess would be that he is not religious in any meaningful way. The only value I've seen Trump stand for is helping himself. Every single other issue I've seen him talk about he's talked out of every side of his mouth.

If you or anyone else has evidence I'm wrong, please show me and I'll change my mind.

 

[redleghunter]

If you're going to criticize pre Southern Strategy Dems, you need to talk to post Southern Strategy Republicans. I'm surprised that I, a Canadian, appear to know more about American history than you.

I see the issue now. You are Canadian. Nothing wrong about that of course. You just look through a different lens.

The Southern strategy was to twofold actually:

1. an appeal to fiscal responsibility and tax reform
2. an appeal to morals---social conservatism

Had nothing to do with race. The race 'wars' of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations died off along with the Vietnam war. Sometimes we have to 'quit living in the past.'

As I pointed out in earlier posts, in the height of the what is called the 'moral majority' movement, it was the liberal North East in the US which had the larger issues with not implementing desegregation. I provided links as well.

 

[redleghunter]

So, be careful throwing around the "racist" word......the word has been diluted today to mean many things that it was never intended to be.

Especially in the "Twitter" generation. People tend to use 'packed' words to make an impact in 140 characters or fewer.

It's typical politics as usual. For example, a politician can tweet out about an opponent 'Jones was found in the stables having relations with the farm animals." To which Jones says "surely not!." Jones' opponent knows the accusation is not true, but forced Jones to actually make a statement to deny the charges knowing most people would not 'listen to' the rebuttal.

That is what is happening on this thread. We have folks saying a large portion of our fellow citizens are 'racists.' Of course the response is 'prove it' and 'how do you know' etc. But it does not matter. The assertion is levied and now no matter how outrageous or inaccurate the claim is, it is left out there.

 

[redleghunter]

.
Yeah I don't blame you, the facts are definitely against you.

Can you point me to the posts where you actually list any facts?

 

[J Cord]

I see the issue now. You are Canadian. Nothing wrong about that of course. You just look through a different lens.

The Southern strategy was to twofold actually:

1. an appeal to fiscal responsibility and tax reform
2. an appeal to morals---social conservatism

Had nothing to do with race. The race 'wars' of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations died off along with the Vietnam war. Sometimes we have to 'quit living in the past.'

As I pointed out in earlier posts, in the height of the what is called the 'moral majority' movement, it was the liberal North East in the US which had the larger issues with not implementing desegregation. I provided links as well.

Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, spells out exactly what the Southern Strategy is, and how it works. Here is the quote of what he said:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, N*****, N*****." By 1968 you can't say "N*****" — 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 "N*****, N*****."


Can you please show where he talks about "1. an appeal to fiscal responsiblity and tax reform 2. an appeal to morals--social consrvatism".

Quite the opposite, Atwater talks about how to court the racists to win elections, which surprise surprise, is exactly what Trump is doing today. That's why Trump is a relevant part of this conversation.

 

[J Cord]

Especially in the "Twitter" generation. People tend to use 'packed' words to make an impact in 140 characters or fewer.

It's typical politics as usual. For example, a politician can tweet out about an opponent 'Jones was found in the stables having relations with the farm animals." To which Jones says "surely not!." Jones' opponent knows the accusation is not true, but forced Jones to actually make a statement to deny the charges knowing most people would not 'listen to' the rebuttal.

That is what is happening on this thread. We have folks saying a large portion of our fellow citizens are 'racists.' Of course the response is 'prove it' and 'how do you know' etc. But it does not matter. The assertion is levied and now no matter how outrageous or inaccurate the claim is, it is left out there.

I guess that's why so many people in his own party, so many top Republicans, are saying Trump is courting the racists. It's one of the main reasons so many top Republicans refuse to support Trump.

 

[J Cord]

Can you point me to the posts where you actually list any facts?

LOL, with actual quotes and links and stuff? The post right after the above. Post #55. If you want to go further back, #31 and #33. There may be others as well.

 

[redleghunter]

Which is exactly what you have posted...nothing except your opinion.

But, here is some fact:

Direct quote of Lee Atwater, Republican Strategist in 1981 discussing the Southern Strategy: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, N*****, N*****." By 1968 you can't say "N*****" — 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 "N*****, N*****."

That is exactly what Trump is doing when he spends days saying "Barrack Hussein Obama" in his speeches, when he started and maintained the birther movement, when he talks about banning all Muslims, or how Mexicans coming to the USA are rapists and murders. And so unsurprisingly racists are part of Trump's base.

Did you read the entire interview with Atwater?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php

Thank you for making my point.

 

[J Cord]

Did you read the entire interview with Atwater?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php

Thank you for making my point.

Wow, are you off base. All you did was give someone's opinion, someone who was trying to make excuses for what Atwater said, much like Trump surrogates try to make excuses for what Trump says.

Here is a link to the actual audio. It is very clear what he is saying.

You do understand that anyone can get a URL, make a blog, and say whatever they want, regardless of it's veracity?
================================================
EDIT: Let's put this baby to bed. Here is Michael Steele, head of the RNC, from a speech at DePaul University, posted in Huffington Post:

Michael Steele: For Decades GOP Pursued 'Southern Strategy' That Alienated Minorities

During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued “‘Southern Strategy’

Steele went on to make a candid statement about how the disconnect between Republicans and minorities is not new and has been a part of the party’s strategy for years.

So, who to believe, some random internet poster, or the RNC Chair? Pretty obvious eh?

redleghunter, at least you've learned something, so that's a good thing. Now we can have a discussion about racism and the Origin of the Religious Right based on facts, which is also a good thing. As well, you don't need to ask why Trump is part of the conversation, you know why.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Stillicidia]

The far political and religious right is the spirit of pharisees, which is of Jewish origin. The far political and far left is the spirit of Jezebel who was a lady.

Those two spirits can tend to be very strong in our country. So I don't care their origins, only to convey that they're here, and they're bad.

The left one both demands freedoms for all persons, and also if anyone disagrees with them they view them as mentally unfit and worthy of death. The right one turns Christians into fundamentally Jewish believers. They believe that there should be a small group that governs the world, believing that they know better than the people, hence Jesus said even now there is a conspiracy.