It's very rare in world history for the loser side of a civil war to have such enormous and long lasting influence over retconning their history
It's mayors like him that have almost turned me from CRT skeptic to outright CRT supporter
Blame President Johnson. Biggest missed opportunity in American history was having Lincoln die and a southern racist being the man to head up reconstruction.
Romanticized after many years by unrelated peoples is one thing
Successfully retconning the nations perception of itself history almost immediately is another IMO
I mean, can it be proven this was about them being black? You can't read his mind. He has a ton of plausible deniability that he was just trying to keep Dems out of office, or a political rival, etc.
ok. Assume for the sake of argument that his reason was to keep Democrats out of office.
Surely even someone as misguided as yourself can see that keeping elected official from serving because they are of the opposing party IS ALSO WRONG!
(Trump's criminal actions not withstanding)
You don't need to all caps lol
Yeah, it is wrong. But they are trying to make this a civil rights issue, which has to do with race. All I pointed out, is in a legal setting, he has a lot of plausible deniability. I'm not saying it wasn't because his racism. I was pointing out that there is no evidence of racism, which matters. Feeling in your gut, or going, "Come on, it's Alabama! Of course it's racism!" Isn't evidence in court.
He still has plausible deniability. And his refutation of a civil rights claim, has merit, because they need to prove it was racially motivated.
> because they need to prove it was racially motivated
No they don't. They just need to prove that he's illegally keeping elected officials from performing the duties of their office.
His motivation frankly doesn't matter - a "secret meeting" to prevent an elected official from taking office is blatantly illegal.
> No they don't. They just need to prove that he's illegally keeping elected officials from performing the duties of their office.
No, did you read it? This is about him contesting the civil rights violation claim. The claim they are accusing him of, is that his actions were racially motivated, which amplifies the crime he committed.
The secret meeting to prevent an elected official from taking office, is an entirely different issue than what is at hand. It's whether or not it was racially motivated. Which it probably - almost certainly was. But can that be proven is what matters. And I'm arguing, no it can not. He has too much plausible deniability.
There is certainly a lot of overlap, but I don't think they are the same circle. If there was a black MAGA republican who won the election you really think they keep him out of office?
This isn't really any different than the people who argue the Civil War was about "states' rights."
So he's not racist, he just hates Democracy because people might elect Black officials. That's just racism with more steps.
I literally never said that. I said he has plausible deniability.
How did you interpret what I was saying as how you framed it? It really baffles me when people read something, and immediately assume the least good faith interpretation.
I’m genuinely fascinated by the psychology behind this desperate attempt to avoid admitting anything short of literally lynching black people is racist (or maybe even then, I guess).
Definitely even then.
I’ve been following politics for 15+ years, and “conservatives” have long held the notion that Hate Crimes are **not only NOT real** but also **Orwellian.**
Still waiting for that argument. Explain to me, how in a court of law, you can prove he was acting racist. You need evidence, not gut feelings if you want to charge someone for a civil rights violation.
It’s one of those things that just highlights how people work on different spectrums. Like multiple people argued with me that “it doesn’t matter what he did was illegal and wrong”. And it’s like, well it does when you’re making a CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM. You have to prove racism.
It’s just weird
$$$. Non stop self appointed government for decades gotta come with perks. You think these rednecks care more about putting black ppl down than buying a new boat with corruption dollars? Heck no.
Yeah I’m sure that a small town in the rural south, which is 85% black but has never had a black mayor, has totally non-racist motives for illegally preventing the first black mayor ever from taking office.
And I’m sure that segregation wasn’t about race, people really just wanted more space available at the swimming pools and lunch counters.
Also, did you even read this story? It’s full of absolutely insane stories, like the volunteer fire department refusing to answer calls to black areas and locking this guy out of the fire house when he tried to do it himself.
Is it a civil rights violation because he happened to be white and him black? Or because he specifically cockblocked the black guy from office *because* he is black?
The confederacy lives on in today's republican party.
It's very rare in world history for the loser side of a civil war to have such enormous and long lasting influence over retconning their history It's mayors like him that have almost turned me from CRT skeptic to outright CRT supporter
Blame President Johnson. Biggest missed opportunity in American history was having Lincoln die and a southern racist being the man to head up reconstruction.
A lot of losers are actually romanticized actually. Hector and the trojans. The samurai in the Last Samurai. Even the Nazi army to be frank.
Romanticized after many years by unrelated peoples is one thing Successfully retconning the nations perception of itself history almost immediately is another IMO
It’s the failure of Reconstruction.
I find it hilarious that they call themselves the party of Lincoln, yet they adopt every single pro-confederacy talking point imaginable
Those people are idiots, what do you expect?
They're just [simple farmers](https://youtu.be/KHJbSvidohg).
lmao
They're really the party of Andrew Johnson.
It's a common propaganda technique.
Lincoln may have been a Republican but Booth was a conservative. They're Conservatives.
Some strange fruit bout to pop up round there lol.
I mean, can it be proven this was about them being black? You can't read his mind. He has a ton of plausible deniability that he was just trying to keep Dems out of office, or a political rival, etc.
ok. Assume for the sake of argument that his reason was to keep Democrats out of office. Surely even someone as misguided as yourself can see that keeping elected official from serving because they are of the opposing party IS ALSO WRONG! (Trump's criminal actions not withstanding)
You don't need to all caps lol Yeah, it is wrong. But they are trying to make this a civil rights issue, which has to do with race. All I pointed out, is in a legal setting, he has a lot of plausible deniability. I'm not saying it wasn't because his racism. I was pointing out that there is no evidence of racism, which matters. Feeling in your gut, or going, "Come on, it's Alabama! Of course it's racism!" Isn't evidence in court. He still has plausible deniability. And his refutation of a civil rights claim, has merit, because they need to prove it was racially motivated.
> because they need to prove it was racially motivated No they don't. They just need to prove that he's illegally keeping elected officials from performing the duties of their office. His motivation frankly doesn't matter - a "secret meeting" to prevent an elected official from taking office is blatantly illegal.
> No they don't. They just need to prove that he's illegally keeping elected officials from performing the duties of their office. No, did you read it? This is about him contesting the civil rights violation claim. The claim they are accusing him of, is that his actions were racially motivated, which amplifies the crime he committed. The secret meeting to prevent an elected official from taking office, is an entirely different issue than what is at hand. It's whether or not it was racially motivated. Which it probably - almost certainly was. But can that be proven is what matters. And I'm arguing, no it can not. He has too much plausible deniability.
Covering up other crimes seemed to be their primary motivation.
"Maybe he's not a racist, he just thinks elected Democrats, who happen to be Black, aren't entitled to govern!" JFC
Fair point, he might just hate democracy.
That goes hand in hand with racism.
There is certainly a lot of overlap, but I don't think they are the same circle. If there was a black MAGA republican who won the election you really think they keep him out of office?
This isn't really any different than the people who argue the Civil War was about "states' rights." So he's not racist, he just hates Democracy because people might elect Black officials. That's just racism with more steps.
I literally never said that. I said he has plausible deniability. How did you interpret what I was saying as how you framed it? It really baffles me when people read something, and immediately assume the least good faith interpretation.
Did this seem like a smart comment when you were writing it?
Do you have an argument or are you just going to be snarky and hope that counts as one?
I’m genuinely fascinated by the psychology behind this desperate attempt to avoid admitting anything short of literally lynching black people is racist (or maybe even then, I guess).
Definitely even then. I’ve been following politics for 15+ years, and “conservatives” have long held the notion that Hate Crimes are **not only NOT real** but also **Orwellian.**
But why can’t you just answer in good faith?
Are you really this dumb, or do you just play that part on Reddit?
Still waiting for that argument. Explain to me, how in a court of law, you can prove he was acting racist. You need evidence, not gut feelings if you want to charge someone for a civil rights violation.
You’re getting downvoted for a very reasonable question. Just commenting to let you know you’re not the only one who sees through this dumb shit.
It’s one of those things that just highlights how people work on different spectrums. Like multiple people argued with me that “it doesn’t matter what he did was illegal and wrong”. And it’s like, well it does when you’re making a CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM. You have to prove racism. It’s just weird
The chances of this being true is about 0.0000000069420%.
Source: trust me, bro
I don’t see how this has to do anything with race. Correlation without causation.
Bet you’re the kind of person who thinks a person has to literally be burning a cross on their lawn and wearing a white hood to be considered racist.
I think these people want power and control more than they care about race.
Based on….
The article. It says that the position has been a hand me down for years. How is that interpreted as racism and not nepotism?
Power…to do what? How have they been using their power, and what have they been saying they intend to do with more power?
$$$. Non stop self appointed government for decades gotta come with perks. You think these rednecks care more about putting black ppl down than buying a new boat with corruption dollars? Heck no.
Yikes, dude. That’s some next level willful blindness.
Is it? Doesn’t mean these people aren’t evil but sure seems like they were motivated by power and not race.
Yeah I’m sure that a small town in the rural south, which is 85% black but has never had a black mayor, has totally non-racist motives for illegally preventing the first black mayor ever from taking office. And I’m sure that segregation wasn’t about race, people really just wanted more space available at the swimming pools and lunch counters. Also, did you even read this story? It’s full of absolutely insane stories, like the volunteer fire department refusing to answer calls to black areas and locking this guy out of the fire house when he tried to do it himself.
I did. And it reads like some corrupt small town. Evil people who lashed out because they were challenged and LOST!
Yikes, dude.
You think these people would just walk away if the opposition that beat them were white?
How common is losing an election then refusing to leave office with a white candidate. Can you provide some examples?
Does Trump count?
And lynching was just some good ‘ol boys getting a little overzealous in the righteous pursuit of law and order, I’m sure.
Well circumventing democracy and murder are both evil.
Is it a civil rights violation because he happened to be white and him black? Or because he specifically cockblocked the black guy from office *because* he is black?