dem's governor candidate lost by 20 fucking points. it wasn't even close. no one wants that shit, and when florida banned all the cheaty garbage for elections, it's so much harder to cheat.
On the other side are Florida’s Black leaders and national civil rights activists like Al Sharpton. They vow to ignite voter energy and unleash a grassroots movement to remind people that “this is not 1963. It’s 2023.”
Yes it is 1963. That's the problem. You assholes have been pulling the same shit incessantly for 70 fucking years.
Let me get the Goldwater bio out, again...
Among the "segregationist" Democrats who voted "nay" along with Goldwater were J William Fulbright, Rhodes scholar and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Sam Irving, noted constitutional scholar and later hero of the Watergate hearings; and Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee liberal and father of Vice President Al Gore. ... Perhaps Goldwater misstated that he was the only senator who voted against passage because he was the only senator who as a result of his vote was branded "the rallying point of white resistance" (Walter Lippman); "a rallying point for all the racists in America" (union official William Chester); and "a hopeless captive of the lunatic calculating right-wing extremists" (Jackie Robinson). NAACP secretary Roy Wilkins later stated that a Goldwater victory "would lead to a police state" while Martin Luther King Jr., declared that there were "dangerous signs of Hitlerism" in Goldwater's programs, adding that if he were elected, the nation would erupt into "violence and riots, the like of which we have never seen before." ...
Many in the news media took their cue from Lippmann, labeling Goldwater an opportunist appealing to the segregationist South, but a few praised the senator for his principled stand. David Lawrence, editor of U.S. News & World Report, called his vote "the courageous act of a man who would rather risk the loss of a presidential nomination or even election than surrender his convictions to political expediency." Arthur Krock of the New York Times agreed, writing that Goldwater "set an example of political and moral courage that was more admirable because of the immediate circumstances." One of the most respected men in American journalism, John S. Knight, president and editor for the Detroit Free Press, became so disturbed at the one-sided media treatment of Goldwater that he took his colleagues across his knees. Although Knight did not support Goldwater, he wrote:
Some of the television commentators discuss Goldwater with evident disdain and contempt. Editorial cartoonists portray him as belonging to the Neanderthal age or as a relic of the nineteenth century. It is the fashion of editorial writers to persuade themselves that Goldwater's followers are either kooks or Birchers. This simply isn't so. The Goldwater movement represents a mass protest by conservatively minded people against foreign aid, excessive welfare, high taxes, foreign policy, and the concentration of power in the federal government.
But Knight's rebuke was generally ignored by the news media that erred so badly in their coverage of Barry Goldwater that three decades later journalists like David Broder of the Washington Post were still apologizing for their mistakes. "It bothered me at the time," says Broder, "and it still bothers me in retrospect that we [the news media] were not able, even those of us who knew him very well, really to slow down the notion which Johnson and Democrats put out that this was in some sense a very dangerous and mean-minded person." People, he added, "had a fundamentally distorted picture of who Goldwater was or what he represented." ...
This character of the Goldwater movement was seriously distorted by Thomas Edsall when he wrote that the Goldwater nomination drive mobilized "a new breed of Republican." This breed, according to one observer, talked "boisterously" about "niggers" and "nigger lovers" at party meetings. Admitting that Clif White, Bill Rusher, John Asbrook, and other architects of "the conservative revolution within the GOP" had not entered politics "because of racial issues," Edsall nevertheless stated that the backlash to the civil rights revolution provided the manpower for the takeover of the GOP, particularly in the South. But John Tower did not win his Senate seat in 1961 by running as a segregationist. And William E Brock of Tennessee did not capture his congressional seat in 1962 by campaigning against civil rights.
Goldwater: The Man Who Made A Revolution
It's still 1963 because we are still arguing against Leftist racialists being wielded as a weapon by an entrenched Fabian Socialist administration that's repeating all of LBJ's talking points, because Leftists never change, and the John Birch Society was right all along.
dem's governor candidate lost by 20 fucking points. it wasn't even close. no one wants that shit, and when florida banned all the cheaty garbage for elections, it's so much harder to cheat.
We need a better fucking label holy shit.
Doesn't matter what our label is, lefty journos are going to characterize us however they want.
Anti-woke is fine by me, but the modern left has nothing to do with civil rights.
Bit of a stretch, isn't it, to count the pro-segregation, anti-miscegenation left as the "civil rights left"?
That's what I said...
In politically linguistics, it is better to be pro something than anti something.
They are anti-naturalist while we are pro civilization.
Yes it is 1963. That's the problem. You assholes have been pulling the same shit incessantly for 70 fucking years.
Let me get the Goldwater bio out, again...
It's still 1963 because we are still arguing against Leftist racialists being wielded as a weapon by an entrenched Fabian Socialist administration that's repeating all of LBJ's talking points, because Leftists never change, and the John Birch Society was right all along.
Grifters unit to continue their grift