Geeto67

I guess it depends what era you are talking about. I mean we did kind of fight a war with them in the 1860's when a whole lot of them wanted to secede from the United States. Following the civil war hare groups were huge depending on the part of the country you lived in. In the south you couldn't get elected without their support from the 1900's to the 1940's so much so that Hugh Black, one of the most significant voices in Brown v. The Board of Education was a Klan member for most of his time in Alabama politics. The NAACP was founded in 1909 largely because the practice of lynching in the south had been so prevalent and state law enforcement so slow to address it that there needed to be an independent agency to address it on a national level Between 1877 and 1950 it is estimated 3959 men, women, and children were hung by lynch mobs in the south. The KKK was such a force in politics by the 1920's that they are the primary reason and the catalyst the political parties switched platforms. By the 1920's conservatives were largely democrats and republicans were liberals. Northern democrats were so stifled by their association with white supremacy in the south that they made it an initiative of the 1924 democratic national convention to oust them from the party - it failed by one vote but the migration to republicanism began there and came into full effect with the rise of FDR in the 1930's. At their height in the 1920's it is estimated roughly 4 million people were members of the Klan, or roughly 20% of the national population. In southern states clan membership was as high as 40%. White supremacy power really began to wain in the 1960's when the federal government took an aggressive stance against them starting with the freedom summer murders in 1964. Lyndon Johnson had to strong arm J Edgar Hoover to do something about it but once the murders got national attention they helped bring further national attention to civil rights activists like MLK and Medgar Evers. Following the 1960's the klan went into hiding so it is hard to gauge membership in that time period. From then till now they have occasionally made an appearance in the political mainstream - most notably tied to David Duke. During the Carter administration, Illinois Nazi's sued the village of Skokie for the right to march as an expression of free speech and one (btw, this is where all those NAZi jokes in the blues brothers movies come from). Form the 1970's to 2015 the number of white supremacy groups in this country was small, somewhere between 29-72. However in 2015 the number took a huge jump to 190 fueled by anti Latino and anti Muslim sentiment. If you are 50 years old or younger, white supremacy hasn't been a big issue politically in your lifetime. If you are 50 or older, it has. For a person that seems like a long time. It when talking about it in terms of countries, 50 years is nothing compared to the 200+ years of white supremacy being a massive influence in politics.

That's why you are the expert

Here is John Kasich saying the same things on the Today show that I have said here Why don't you ban him.

I've laid it out. Here is is again: All is not lost though. Conservative America has a White Supremacy infestation problem. If you disagree you are just ignoring the problem, it is there and it doesn't appear to be going away. The first step is to acknowledge it. The second step is to identify the ways in which it continues to feed. The Third Step is to cut off it's food supply. If you are trying to deflect or diminish the attack on conservatism by finger pointing at a much less significant problem on the left - you are feeding it. Stop If you are supporting politicians that have ties or are advocating policies that have ties to the WS agenda, then stop supporting them. This includes any Politicians that enabled or support the Trump administration. Stop The Republican party owes some responsibility to clean up this mess. Stop giving them money until they do. If they keep getting money and keep getting elected they are going to keep doing the same thing and some of that is enabling White Supremacy.

Sedans tend to trade hands for around $70K. Roadsters are getting near $200K. There is one up for sale at Mecum montery right now: https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/cord/812/1982306.html not a police car though. That police car did survive though and is in the National Auto and Truck Museum which is next to the Aburn, Cord, Dusenberg museum in Auburn Indiana. There is a guy who comes to our bike nights who is building a hot rod out of one. I almost cried when he told me he parted out the 289 Cord v8 and FWD transaxle so he could put a ford v8, tranny, and 9" in the thing.

Tim does not agree with you: I don't think Brandon does either:

The president is. Anybody mirroring that rhetoric is being perceived to as well. much like the guy defending himself from a murder by killing the murderer is on the same playing field as the murder. I get it they are both murderers. :dumb: See above. But let's be clear - Neo Nazis and those opposing Neo Nazis are not on the same moral plane, regardless of tactic. ok, stop right there. Who are the conservative right wing peaceful protesters? Name that group? Remember this was a "Unite the Right" Rally, they organized it and they invited the groups. They invited hate groups. If you were there and you were conservative and you were not a white supremacist, you were either on the same side as all the other liberals or in the wrong place. If you were conservative and you showed up to the "unite the right" organized rally and were on the same side as the White Supremacists, you can't really say you oppose white supremacy. It was a white supremacist rally. I can tell you who was there (identified in the media by flags and images): Alt Right (which has been classified as a hate group for a while now) Smaller Neo-Nazi Groups like Vanguard America Traditional Workers Party Neo-Confederacy Anti-Communist Action Identity Evropa 32 members of various Right Wing Independent Militia Groups organized by the Penn Light Foot Militia (they showed up in full camo uniforms, body armor, and open carrying AR15s). There were there as a "show of force" to "discourage violence". so....who were the non WS conservative groups again? Give me a name of one formal organization who was there, conservative, and not associated with the "Unite the Right". Now I want you to remember this. ALL these groups both claim alliance with general right wing conservatism and the Republican party. yup they were there. nope. In promoting it the unite the right attendees were encouraged to bring weapons and encouraged to resist by force. The majority showed up ready. I don't think you can make the statement that "both sides" had peaceful people when it is clear one side did not. Yes the peacful people got run over by violence. Except the conservative peaceful people who oppose white supremacy because they weren't there. Weren't you the one complaining that the government didn't interfere? :dumb: NOBODY'S RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH WAS SQUASHED. I am using all caps because I don't want you to miss it. The Government did not suppress anyone's speech. that's all the protection you get. Private Individuals can publicly disagree with you as a tactic to cancel our your speech and it is generally ok. Why is free speech so difficult for you to understand? you are married to a lawyer. Just ask her to explain it to you. Tell her to use small words.

Prove it. Show a direct cause and effect from policy to action. Remember Correlation is not Causation. It has been discussed time and time again and is the general consensus that G. W. Bush's foreign policy following 9/11 was a gigantic contributor to the rise of Islamic Terror activities world wide, but again is not the only factor that contributed to that. I would be more willing to say that Obama's widespread use of Predator Drone strikes (10x more in 1 year than Bush in his whole term) and it's reputation for killing civilians had more to do with the increase (a 7% increase from 2009-2014 and a 13% decrease between 2014-2016 according to the state department) than any tolerance of Islam. People tend to want to kill you for killing their people, not for giving them equal rights. This kind of hurts your narrative though because killing enemy combatants (and a shitload of civilians by accident) is not the same thing as empowering Muslim Extremists. But seriously, prove that Obama's tolerance of Islam enabled Islamic terrorism. actually, you know what, I'll make it even easier - find some Islamic Jihad group that interpreted Obama's statements about them as praise for their Jihad.

What I mean by "So what" is what does it help by saying "the left isn't innocent"? It doesn't. It does hurt though, and it leads to more violence. I just covered that in False Equivalency. There is a consequence in condemning both sides as equal and that is it continues to legitimize white supremacy and embolden white supremacists. This isn't about who is in support of what, this is about the consequences of actions. Conservatism's lack to act when White Supremacy began to publicly associate itself with it has continued to feed their activity. Trump's weak and tolerant stance on white supremacy, his appointment of known supporters of White Supremacy, and his base's acceptance of this has directly contributed to the increase in violence. If you voted for him you owe some responsibility to this. It wasn't like there weren't explicit warnings that this was a potential consequence - but empowerment of white supremacy was not a deal breaker. I don't know that you can say you aren't "racist, homophobic, xenophobic, white supremacist", when your actions directly contributed to the empowerment of people advocating those things. All is not lost though. Conservative America has a White Supremacy infestation problem. If you disagree you are just ignoring the problem, it is there and it doesn't appear to be going away. The first step is to acknowledge it. The second step is to identify the ways in which it continues to feed. The Third Step is to cut off it's food supply. If you are trying to deflect or diminish the attack on conservatism by finger pointing at a much less significant problem on the left - you are feeding it. Stop If you are supporting politicians that have ties or are advocating policies that have ties to the WS agenda, then stop supporting them. This includes any Politicians that enabled or support the Trump administration. Stop The Republican party owes some responsibility to clean up this mess. Stop giving them money until they do. If they keep getting money and keep getting elected they are going to keep doing the same thing and some of that is enabling White Supremacy. If you don't do these things, you can't say you are not racist, homophobic, xenophobic, white supremacist. It's on you - you don't want to be associated with these things, this is what it going to take to reclaim your party. White Supremacy has always been a political problem for both sides. It has money, influence, and numbers, and leverage. Right now it is doing the most damage to conservatism. If something is not done there may not be a way to save conservatism in this country. This is not a problem that is going to go away if you ignore it. This is not a problem you are resisting if you are being centrist. This requires action.

I have heard of this before, supposedly it's a GT with GT500 bodywork because it was wrecked at one point. Still cool. While web surfing I found this image: That's a 1937 supercharged 812 Cord Westchester sedan. The 1937 170hp equivalent of a Charger Hellcat.

http://siblingleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FMLA-Fact-Sheet.pdf also: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/fmla-leave-sibling-care.aspx I can tell you from years ago when my wife went on Maternity leave that you usually have to burn through all your vacation days before they trigger the FMLA days. My general impression is that your employer is going to fight you on this because they don't see it as generally covered.

Nobody is saying there isn't "violence" on the left. However Violence from the left is not as big a concern as Violence from White Supremacy. Why? because White Supremacist violence is THE NUMBER 1 for committing the most violent acts of ANY EXTREMIST GROUP in the country. Their body count is lower because they tend not to commit mass shooting acts in large areas. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/state-of-white-supremacy https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/hate-incidents http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/ It's like you are standing at an airport comparing a C-130 to a Cessna 172 and you keep saying "they are the same because they are both airplanes". Yes they are airplanes but if I was assessing the risk to the high rise apartment buildings at the end of the runway I am not going to say the 172 poses the same risk as a fully loaded c-130. To then continue to say the risk is the same is False Equivalency. Why is False Equivalency important? False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence The tactic of False Equivalence is very important to White Supremacists right now because it down plays White Supremacists Violence by making it seem equal in scope, frequency, and magnitude to acts by similar groups. This is not a true statement. White Supremacy is not equal in scope, magnitude, or frequency to other group - to say that they are is to be an apologist for white supremacy. If you are having a conversation about white supremacist violence in this country right now and you bring up leftist violence as a way to disarm the conversation with any kind of inference that they are equal (As you have Brandon) - you are participating the the White Supremacy False Equivalence campaign. You don't think you are supporting White Supremacy, but when you do this that is Absolutely without a doubt what you are doing. Ok, they aren't completely innocent. So what? They aren't the larger threat either. You can't use left violence to justify white supremacist violence. Two wrongs don't make a right. If your conversation is to pivot and point fingers to the left because you think a small amount of violence is equal to the number one perpetrator of domestic terrorism, then you are helping distract from the threat of White Supremacy. We aren't out here looking for the cause of "liberal violence" we know the cause. It is the Increase in White Supremacist activity since this administration took office. The question is, why are the White Supremacists suddenly emboldened to become more public, grow their ranks, and act more? Well, maybe it has something to so with general conservatism's, the Republican party's, and this administration's tolerance of white supremacy.

Just because something "calls" itself "Unbaised" doesn't mean it is. In fact it is very much a conservative group with a very conservative agenda. Their Admin is also affiliated with Tucker Carlson's "The Daily Caller" which if you were to rate new organizations by trustworthiness wouldn't be fit to line a birdcage if you printed it out. You are basically sharing a conservative propagandist Facebook group. You aren't getting both sides of the story out of that shit heap.

ok, explain. here is your chance.

If you are going to accept this as fact, then you have to also accept as fact that political conservatism in this country is White Supremacy because ALL white supremacists also call themselves and view themselves as conservative. You don't get to double deal on this kind of logic. Also, "White Privileged" is objectively a thing that exists. To think that it is an opinion is to again be the definition of ignorant. It is documented, and continues to be documented. If you claim it is not something that exists...again only you control your level of ignorance on this and right now on a scale of 1-10 where 10 = very informed, your statements indicate you are a 1. Maybe not everything people claim is White Privileged is actually white privilege (there is a lot of intersectionality with poverty) but to pretend that it doesn't exist is just pure ignorance. Having a conversation about racisim is not racist. White privilege is relevant to that conversation and it is not racist to acknowledge its existence or discuss it's scope. To claim that it doesn't exist when it objectively does? that is racist, and also ignorant, and to be honest - kinda stupid. I think we have well established your textbook ignorance in this conversation. I don't have to respect your lack of knowledge and your willful ignorance in the face of evidence to the contrary. I don't have to give you a medal for being poorly informed and opinionated, you don't get a pat on the head, there is no participation trophy for you. You bought someone else's lies, you have no drive to seek the information for yourself, and you are digging in. An organization open to the discussion of race does not make it a defacto racist organization. The required element in every definition of being a racist is that the person/organization has to feel they are racially SUPERIOR to all others. Recognizing racial bias in society and identifying does not make someone a racist without an assertion that the bias is because they are superior racially. Congrats on demonstrating that you are ignorant (again as in lacking facts or knowledge) on the defintion of racism as well. Please point me to the basis for this. The only people discussing free speech in the context of Antifa are extremeist conservative pundits. I have yet to see any AntiFA statements on free speech at all....and you want to know why? Because it isn't a factor. I am going to make this crystal clear: Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. get it yet? no? ok one more: Free Speech Protection ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT. AntiFa is not the government. They have no requirement to not interfere with free speech. They are not promoting Free speech. They, like the white supremacists, are relying on the fact that Free Speech protection only applies to the government to combat white supremacy. They know the government is not going to stop the white supremacists or them, and they know that they have a right to disagree with the white supremacists. They are not "advocates" or champions of free speech. It is not hypocritical to express an opinion as a private citizen/organization. If you think Antifa is "about free speech" or promoting free speech you are just wrong. And again ignorant in the text book definition. Your right to free speech is not protected BY the government, It is protected FROM the government. You have every right to say stupid things, I have ever right to point out your things are stupid and to tell you to shut the fuck up. The government generally doesn't have a right to interfere with either opinion. You are not protected by the government from me telling you to shut the fuck up. Free speech doesn't not protect you from the opinions of other people. White Supremacists are not protected from the opinions of AntiFa. the government doesn't have a right to put either in jail for just speech (violence is not considered speech by the way, you can be put in jail for that). I agree that they are what is probably best called "reactionary violent", and that violence is not an acceptable tactic. I am also concerned that increased violence will cede more power to the executive office, not less as they can declare a state of emergency which can supersede certain checks and balances. If you think Trump is bad now, imagine what happens when some some of the safety controls are suspended. Then stop spreading their propaganda and accepting their tactics. Stop repeating positions that have roots in White Supremacist propaganda. If you really belive that you oppose them stop working for them. Do some actual research. Half the shit you say is contradictory to the general accepted definition of the words you use. It's maddening. There are times to be a centrist, and there are times where being a centrist is going to be a problem. The reaction and fall out to the VA tragedy is not the time to be a centrist. It is a time to be informed and you are just not there.

I am referring to what you call "Anti-white". You and I have a fundamental disagreement about BLM and Antifa because you are very poorly informed about them and seem to think they are terrorist organizations (an opinion not held by the consensus of people in this country) when they are not. I can't do anything about your ignorance in this matter, that's all up to you. However, I can't say there are no Anti-white groups at all. They do exist. They do NOT include BLM and Antifa, to believe they do is to have bought the white supremacist/kkk/alt right propaganda. Certain militant Islamic extremists and black separatists, again not BLM - BLM IS NOT A SEPARATIST GROUP, do have agendas that come out against interracial mixing and advocate the same kind of eugenics and genocide as the white supremacists. You know what, since I know you aren't going to do any research on this and are going to try to maintain your bubble for as much as possible (as you have continued doing this entire time) here is a list of seperatists compiled by the southern poverty law center: -All Eyes on Egipt Bookstore -Black Riders Liberation Party -Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, The -Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge -Israel United In Christ -Nation of Islam (the Detroit based political group, not all of Islam) -New Black Panther Party -New Black Panther Party for Self Defense -Sicarii 1715 -War On The Horizon https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-separatist ok, notice what is not on this list? BLM. Also Antifa is not on there either. When you talk about Anti-white, this list above is who you are talking about. When you refer to BLM or antifa as "anti-white" I am going to continue to call you ignorant because objectively that is an ignorant statement in the text book definition of ignorance as having a lack of knowledge and information. When you repeat conservative pundits who classify BLM or Antifa as "Anti-White" you are objectively repeating fascist/WS propaganda. You know why you don't hear about the above separatist groups being at Charlottesville? because for the most part they were not there. Also, many of them ally with WS supremacists groups - they don't generally fight against them because the way they see it, it's possible to have both their goals in separate geographic locations with isolationist societies. The opposite of White Supremacy is not Black Supremacy - It's just fucking normal common sense. If you do want to be critical of Antifa, they are Militant group. Militant = not opposed to violence. They are a loose association of groups who have decided that the government is not going to do anything about White supremacy so they are going to fight it in the streets. They are not Always violent, and are fairly restrained in their use, but they come with the expectation that WS groups are looking to provoke a fight and they are going to give it to them. They are not wrong in their assumption that Fascist groups are promoting violence - there is no such thing as a peaceful white supremacist organization. If you don't think so, go read all the promotional material leading up to unite the right that advocated bringing weapons and rhetoric that their cause will be advanced by violence. Here is a good article detailing AntiFa: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/?utm_term=.22ee52e23b35 Are we clear?

yes, and you want to know why? because it didn't carry that after statement falsely equating lefts groups to them. Maybe when things cool down a little you can get back to your fear mongering about how antifa is the devil and some such nonsense, but understand the context of the times at this particular moment that any statement that goes further than this to shift any blame to the fringe left is generally being interpreted as undermining that statement and rendering it useless.

Tim, the drugs you do must be fantastic. I've spoke to Brandon in real life. He's a nice kid. Love his challenger.

This guy says it's murderers. but we know the truth: http://shiftinglanes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ford-mustang-meme-making-a-murderer.jpg

I know this is a facetious question but.... All of the major CEOs quit in the last 48 hours. He literally lost almost all the largest and most powerful companies, and with their exit more went with them and the desire to sit on one of those councils dropped to 0. The most coveted private sector business sports in his administration just became poison. So he "fired" them to "save face" and disbanded the council to further "save face" because it would be difficult to find business leaders who would want to take on the liability of a potentially racist president and sit on those councils. The balance of power on these councils is in favor of the executive office - Business leaders fight over these spots because it is usually an opportunity to guide business related policy, but in the end the EO has control over final policy making. In turn they collaborate with him to help him realize other agenda items. The level of toxicity has to be unimaginably high for the leaders of industry to not think you are worth their time when it comes to something extremely valuable to them. And yet here's Trump. He just lost almost all his support and confidence from the business and mfg sector. He ain't gonna get shit done now (and republicans own the majority!!!). The White Supremacists own the Republican party. To continue my cuckholding analogy - this is the White Supremacists pulling anal on video with the white house's girlfriend. First time anal. Cucks. But somehow Hillary is worse? yeah, right.

not rumor. Just got several press releases from members of the council stating they quit.

Nobody has to try very hard to skew anything in this case. If anything you say can be interpreted as "White Supremacists suck, BUT...." you have lost. It's the but that kills you. If you feel like there is something more to say after White supremacists "suck" that in any way defends the actions of White Supremacists (including being critical of a group that is fighting against it) then you have turned yourself into a but. completely. unsurprised. but a you and him have a lot of parallel thinking and seem to share the same tone deafness on the issues. This is more about whether he is meeting the national expectation. In all cases of this in the past the expectation is a strong condemnation. Anything less than that is insufficient. Trump aimed for failure with a centrist position and he hit that target square by falling well below the national expectation. No word twisting necessary. If you aren't clearly denouncing the White supremacists, in this case (and he wasn't) you aren't hitting the mark. To make it worse, he then did meet the mark 48 hours later, and then reverted to a centrist position after that. It's not a word twist. If the Klan feels bold enough to interpret your actions as tacit support then guess what? you weren't clear enough. again, this is all on face value. we don't really have to go any further. I don't want to know what right wing pundit nonsense you are reading that "twists" his word and makes it sound like he started the riot riding a golden steed - If your "statement" on a massive tragedy has a hole big enough in it that the clan can drive a truck of positive support through it - you failed bro. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-thanks-donald-trump-leftist-terrorists-charlottesville-violence-latest-a7895451.html https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/really-proud-of-him-richard-spencer-and-alt-right-leaders-praise-trumps-comments/537039/ yup don't care. Weak response = Klan thinks they support him. They aren't wrong even if he didn't intend it. After that I don't care who he means by bad dudes and good dudes. Dude can be rock hard with a despot asian dictator with a stupid haircut, but is flaccid when it comes to fucking Nazis? weak sauce. Honestly he's been more critical of morning show hosts than white supremacists in this issue. His dick must be a mirror image of his belly button right now. He states something. I tell him what his statements mean to others that don't share his viewpoint. At that point it doesn't get clearer, he can 1) adjust for a clearer message or 2) accept what people think of him. Doesn't get much clearer than that. [quote} No he doesn't, you need to change your optics and take what he says as fact and truth vs running it through some twisted filter. Says you. Dude is literally a pile of ignorance and opinion. I tell him what his shit sounds like to me. He can change, not change, not share his opinion. his choice. I'm not really asking for his opinion. I don't really think of him as an informed individual on matters of race. Conversely I don't really put my opinion out there that I don't expect to be challenged on. If he's crying about being challenged on a shitty opinion, tell him to toughen up buttercup. um yes. he is. he is absolutely wrong with treating a tiny group that poses almost no threat on the same level as an organization that killed more Americans than Islamic based terrorism. That's been the whole point. Ok here is another thing. ALL members of the KKK are fucksticks. But not all members of BLM are. Go read your statement again - you are basically saying there are Klan members who aren't fucksticks (I highlighted this for you). You are saying...an organization where your membership means you support genocide, eugenics, and ethnic cleansing are not fucksticks. This is the definition of false equivalency. No, but you bet your ass I would make a strong statement against it and take action to distance my self. This would not include statements with caveats or buts. Your Party has some control over it's perception. It does this with a STRONG statement. "On both sides" is not a strong statement. It's a concession. White Supremacists are fucking the white house's girlfriend for all the international neighbors to see. They own your party right now. throwing up your hands and saying "what can I do" is the cuck move. I don't know that Brandon knows what he means to say. I know what he said, and I can kind of guess what he thinks he means, but usually when I give him the chance to clarify he doubles down on the stupid thing. If I tell him that "hey it makes you look like you are making excuses for the clan when you say 'White supremacy is evil, but...'" and his response is "yeah but White Supremacy is evil, but..." some more then I don't really have to give him much of a chance.

Since you are one of the few consistent Republicans I actually respect, I have to ask Clay: how far are you willing to go with "Never Again". Trump didn't do this on his own. He was enabled by particularly toxic culture inside the Republican party. We have to face that the George HW Bushes, Eisenhowers, Goldwaters, Mcnamaras, and Buckleys aren't coming into the party anymore and the few old time holdouts like McCain and Romney are not going to be around forever. Are you willing to extend this "never again" to Ryan, McConnell, and the like. Rob Portman falls into this category - he has backed trump positions 90% of the time and had publicly more than once endorsed the Trump position. I honestly don't think he's doing a bad job, but I still feel like he kind of has to pay for his complicity in the Trump fiasco. Brown is up for election first next year and honestly I kind of feel like his position is in jepoardy and could use some support. I don't think the party is going to change unless there is a purge of the sickness inside it. As much as I disliked Boehner's policies he was a staunch defense against the McConnell and Ryan obstructionist types and his resignation in 2011 can be said to be the beginning of the new ugly republicanism that has lead to a Trump presidency. Getting rid of Trump won't stop whats going on, some of the rest have to go too.

really that's a bummer. Back in NY in the 1990's they used to seize all the street race cars and then press them into service as undercover units. A friend of a good friend lost his supercharged 1991 Notch LX to NYPD for getting caught lining up on the Cross Island North of Francis Lewis. They outfitted it with an inside light bar and then brought it too all the spots. Even suckered one or two. By the end of week 2 word had got around and everybody knew the car anyway and they had to move it, so they painted it white and pressed it into speed enforcement on the LIE in queens before retiring it to DARE. The officer who did speed enforcement was a real dick too, he used to hard tailgate you and then do the ricer flyby to see if you would bite. If you brake checked him you usually ended up with a fist full of "equipment violations". Suffolk County's State Trooper outpost on the Southern State Parkway in 2003 used to have a 4th gen Camaro SS they used for speed enforcement all the time. I even got pinched by it once in my GTO. IT wasn't a 1LE police package car, it was a genuine SLP SS, even had the SS badges, but it was painted green. I was back a week ago and saw a challenger R/T had replaced it . I have to admit, I love police hot rods. In high school a buddy of mine used to work on NYPD blue prepping the prop cars (his father worked for panavision) and minor body work. We sometimes used to tool around at night in those old 9c1 bubble caprices (this was about 1994-95). Loved those cars.

He uses the same tactic of misdirection and false equivalency to diminish the implied threat that is currently in use with conservative politicians at the moment. The Net effect of that is to weaken an otherwise strong stance against the KKK. It looks like he is making excuses on their behalf. I am telling him this is what it looks like. He isn't the only one doing this - this seems to be the conservative party line at the moment and it is being met with the same derision. If he feels otherwise his options are 1) to change his tactic, 2) accept that is how some people are going to seem him. They didn't call it unite the racists. It was "Unite the right". Jason Kessler has given many many many interviews and has been more than clear that his goal with the rally was to unite the many fractured right wing groups, including white supremacists into a cohesive conservative movement.