Poll of the Day > Lyndon B. Johnson Quote

(+) Yeah! (+)

So LBJ supposedly said: "If you can convince the lowest White man he's better than the best Black man, and he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I thought about this in today's terms and substituted Trump for the White guy and Obama for the Black guy.

Your thoughts? Was he accurate?
---

Sounds about right

explains the mentality of a lotta people nowadays

---

BUMPED2002 posted...

So LBJ supposedly said: "If you can convince the lowest White man he's better than the best Black man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I thought about this in today's terms and substituted Trump for the White guy and Obama for the Black guy.

Your thoughts? Was he accurate?

The Democrats were always racist. The Republicans don't give a crap about race, but the Democrats always insist that Trump is using "dog whistles" for White Supremacy, even though before 2015, Trump was NOT ONCE thought of as a "racist".

The Civil Rights Act was passed by Johnson, but it was not because he loved blacks. Quite the contrary actually. He stated "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Most of the Democratic platform has been about race, and about trying to claim that everything is about skin color. Take Trump's Voter ID laws for instance. He wants an ID system in place for voting, to significantly reduce voter fraud. Democrats claim that it is about "voter suppression for minorities" or how that they "don't have the means to get an ID", even though you can't do anything without an ID. Democrats were calling minorities stupid, but pinning the blame on Republicans, even though Voter ID laws would prevent a "Russia Collusion" scenario. I'll have a video of Ami Horowitz on Voter ID laws here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk" data-time="

I don't give a damn about skin color. I, instead, give a damn about giving everyone equal rights and treatment under the rule of law, and that has been the Republican platform ever since its inception. But because special treatment isn't given to minorities, or the term "racism" isn't called out every day of the week over stupid and irrelevant things, the Republican Party has been branded as the "racist" party.

TheWorstPoster posted...

I don't give a damn about skin color. I, instead, give a damn about giving everyone equal rights and treatment under the rule of law, and that has been the Republican platform ever since its inception. But because special treatment isn't given to minorities, or the term "racism" isn't called out every day of the week over stupid and irrelevant things, the Republican Party has been branded as the "racist" party.

I can already see the "TRUMP IS RACIST" card being played any minute now.
---

Trump is racist

---

The_tall_midget posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

I don't give a damn about skin color. I, instead, give a damn about giving everyone equal rights and treatment under the rule of law, and that has been the Republican platform ever since its inception. But because special treatment isn't given to minorities, or the term "racism" isn't called out every day of the week over stupid and irrelevant things, the Republican Party has been branded as the "racist" party.

I can already see the "TRUMP IS RACIST" card being played any minute now.

If Donald Trump is indeed a racist, he is doing a terrible job at it

TheWorstPoster posted...

Yes, but he told 4 America of color to go back to their own country (3 of those are American!!!). Which, as you know, invalidates everything.
---

Mead posted...

Trump is racist

Right on queue!
---

The_tall_midget posted...

Right on queue!

thatsthejoke.jpug

---

Mead posted...

thatsthejoke.jpug

I know, Mead... I know. You keep doing... whatever it is you do. You're doing a great job at it!

I think.
---

Mead posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

Right on queue!

thatsthejoke.jpug

With you, I could not tell if that was a joke or not. Trump is about as racist as I am an astronaut.

The_tall_midget posted...

I know, Mead... I know. You keep doing... whatever it is you do. You're doing a great job at it!

I think.

Thank you

---

TheWorstPoster posted...

BUMPED2002 posted...

So LBJ supposedly said: "If you can convince the lowest White man he's better than the best Black man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I thought about this in today's terms and substituted Trump for the White guy and Obama for the Black guy.

Your thoughts? Was he accurate?

The Democrats were always racist. The Republicans don't give a crap about race, but the Democrats always insist that Trump is using "dog whistles" for White Supremacy, even though before 2015, Trump was NOT ONCE thought of as a "racist".

The Civil Rights Act was passed by Johnson, but it was not because he loved blacks. Quite the contrary actually. He stated "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Most of the Democratic platform has been about race, and about trying to claim that everything is about skin color. Take Trump's Voter ID laws for instance. He wants an ID system in place for voting, to significantly reduce voter fraud. Democrats claim that it is about "voter suppression for minorities" or how that they "don't have the means to get an ID", even though you can't do anything without an ID. Democrats were calling minorities stupid, but pinning the blame on Republicans, even though Voter ID laws would prevent a "Russia Collusion" scenario. I'll have a video of Ami Horowitz on Voter ID laws here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk" data-time="

I don't give a damn about skin color. I, instead, give a damn about giving everyone equal rights and treatment under the rule of law, and that has been the Republican platform ever since its inception. But because special treatment isn't given to minorities, or the term "racism" isn't called out every day of the week over stupid and irrelevant things, the Republican Party has been branded as the "racist" party.

Oh, I disagree with you! You do know the Dem and Repub parties that emerged out of the 1960s via the "Southern Strategy" were not the same parties of Lincolns day.

The Southern Strategy is a Republican electoral strategy to increase political support among White voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.

The racist Southern Dems (Dixiecrats) were upset at the passage of the Civil Rights Legislation so they jumped ship at Nixon's urging and joined the GOP.
---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Oh, I disagree with you! You do know the Dem and Repub parties that emerged out of the 1960s via the "Southern Strategy" were not the same parties of Lincolns day.

Then why did the South vote majority Democratic Governors, Senators, and Congressmen until the late 90's?

BUMPED2002 posted...

The Southern Strategy is a Republican electoral strategy to increase political support among White voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.

No. It was NOT to appeal to racism to the South. It was the South that was changing, not the Republican Party. Hell, Republicans became competitive in the South since 1928 when Herbert Hoover won 47% of the Popular Vote in the South. Eisenhower WON the Southern support during his elections, even AFTER the Brown vs. the Board of Education, Nixon LOST the South in 1968, Jimmy Carter WON the South in 1976, and Bill Clinton won the South in 1992. It was not the Republicans changing their political stance to the South, but the South changing their political stance themselves since the 1920's, when segregationists were going out the window, to the point where they became an extremely irrelevant minority by the 1970's, and even then, the South wasn't fully embracing the Republican Party until the mid-1990's.

BUMPED2002 posted...

The racist Southern Dems (Dixiecrats) were upset at the passage of the Civil Rights Legislation so they jumped ship at Nixon's urging and joined the GOP.

You mean just one?

Watch this, but I know you won't and will call me "wrong" anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y" data-time="

Ah, yes, PragerU. The only "education" Dennis Prager wants you to be able to afford. The history of bigotry in the USA isn't so simplistic as to be explained away purely by party lines in five minute videos funded by revisionist think tanks. I suppose most people find it comforting to think that only people that don't agree with them are bigots. >_>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ" data-time="

FDR's administration was notoriously anti-Asian while Reagan let an incurable virus contracted by less than 50 people turn into an epidemic because he hated gay people more than he loved humanity.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

I don't give a damn about skin color. I, instead, give a damn about giving everyone equal rights and treatment under the rule of law, and that has been the Republican platform ever since its inception. But because special treatment isn't given to minorities, or the term "racism" isn't called out every day of the week over stupid and irrelevant things, the Republican Party has been branded as the "racist" party.

I can already see the "TRUMP IS RACIST" card being played any minute now.

If Donald Trump is indeed a racist, he is doing a terrible job at it

Lmao

"I'm not racist! My ex girlfriend, she's black!"
---

faramir77 posted...

Lmao

"I'm not racist! My ex girlfriend, she's black!"

There are a lot of other indications that Trump isn't racist. There are some that indicate he is. I'd say he's probably just a loudmouth asshole, not an actual racist.
---

BUMPED2002 posted...

So LBJ supposedly said: "If you can convince the lowest White man he's better than the best Black man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

I thought about this in today's terms and substituted Trump for the White guy and Obama for the Black guy.

Your thoughts? Was he accurate?

Sounds like you made a stupid quote even stupider. Otherwise I'm not sure if you're familiar with LBJ's pretty well-documented history of racism, especially when it came to his liberal use of the n-word.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Reagan let an incurable virus contracted by less than 50 people turn into an epidemic because he hated gay people more than he loved humanity.

What?
---

Aaantlion posted...

What?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzDn7tE1lU" data-time="
---

Yep weve got a large part of the aids epidemic, mass incarceration, and the failed war on drugs to deal with all because he thought he could run the country like it was one of his old films

---

Mead posted...

Yep weve got a large part of the aids epidemic, mass incarceration, and the failed war on drugs to deal with all because he thought he could run the country like it was one of his old films

I am somewhat hesitant to fault people for not knowing as much as they ought to about the 1970's-1990's, as if their education was anything like mine, their classes didn't even cover anything that happened in those years outside of the Vietnam War. So people tend to not know about Nixon's Supreme Court appointees throwing open the doors to financial corruption in the US government, that the HIV epidemic was completely preventable but the Reagan Administration refused to do anything about it despite the CDC begging them to, etc... but at the same time, we live in the age of the internet. People really don't have an excuse for not knowing these things anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyJ1JdnaSqA" data-time="
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Aaantlion posted...

What?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzDn7tE1lU" data-time="

Your evidence for the accusation seems insufficient. The only thing you've definitely shown is that the press secretary made offensive remarks and publicly didn't take the matter seriously. It doesn't demonstrate what the administration may or may not have been doing, let alone show -- as you seem to imply -- that it was a deliberate act on Reagan's part.

Mead posted...

Yep weve got a large part of the aids epidemic, mass incarceration, and the failed war on drugs to deal with all because he thought he could run the country like it was one of his old films

You can hardly pin issues like mass incarceration or the war on drugs to any one president. For starters, even the phrase "war on drugs" doesn't come from Reagan (Nixon popularized it in the early 70s) and punitive sentencing policies passed in the early 70s quickly caused the prison population to swell. Prison population growth steadily grew under Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton until it began to taper off during the GWB years.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Mead posted...

Yep weve got a large part of the aids epidemic, mass incarceration, and the failed war on drugs to deal with all because he thought he could run the country like it was one of his old films

I am somewhat hesitant to fault people for not knowing as much as they ought to about the 1970's-1990's, as if their education was anything like mine, their classes didn't even cover anything that happened in those years outside of the Vietnam War. So people tend to not know about Nixon's Supreme Court appointees throwing open the doors to financial corruption in the US government, that the HIV epidemic was completely preventable but the Reagan Administration refused to do anything about it despite the CDC begging them to, etc... but at the same time, we live in the age of the internet. People really don't have an excuse for not knowing these things anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyJ1JdnaSqA" data-time="

The "age of the internet" is better called the "Misinformation Age." Case-in-point may be your reliance on alt-news like the Humanist Report. As for the "complete preventability" of HIV, keep in mind that HIV didn't originate in (nor was it limited to) the US and even if the early cases had been isolated, that wouldn't stop additional cases. I will mention that I attempted to google statistics to determine the prevalence of the disease in each nation on a per capita basis and to see the incidence level+response for each nation, but didn't have any luck. If you have that information -- which would do more to establish your case than posting a video of some people laughing in a press pool -- I'd be happy to see it.
---

Its amazing how Zeus acts like an authority on issues immediately after showing that he knows nothing about the subject

---

Are you seriously trying to argue the historical consensus that the Reagan Administration failed to contain the HIV epidemic in the United States when there were less than 50 cases because I posted Youtube videos? What do you want me to do, shove textbooks through my computer? This isn't an opinion; this is a historical fact.

And yes, it was a deliberate choice on Reagan's part. He was debriefed on the situation right from the start, and his administration did not quarantine and treat the victims because they did not consider it worthy of being treated as a matter of public health. By the time they noticed that it was killing more than just gay people and addicts, the disease had spread to the point it could no longer be contained (and the proposed solutions they and Bush Sr's folk floated around at THAT point... well, I think you wouldn't want to hear about that since you can't even take this). This would never have happened if they had treated it as a public health risk from the start rather than God taking out teh icky gays.

Do you want to know what one of the first things Reagan talked about was when he first addressed the epidemic he allowed to break out? Abstinence and morality. In 1987. Three years later, he publicly apologized for his failure. And yet you, who clearly know nothing about this topic, are making up excuses for him even though you know nothing about the subject... why, exactly? Because you don't want it to be true? Grow up.

Do I think Reagan intended for the disease to become a national epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children? No. Is it a fact that he and his administration failed to even try to contain the disease when it first surfaced because they figured it would only kill sub-groups of the American people they didn't care about? Yes.
---