Death Racism 2000: Does History Suggest Libs Are Winning Or Losing The Tolerance Race?

My friend thinks Democrats are the main racists in today’s society as well as in the past. So liberals are secretly the alt-right, tiki-torch wielding hate mongers? Too bad that laundromat was closed on my way to Charlottesville. [Sheet out-of-luck joke removed by the editor.] What fun house mirror are you snorting PCP off of? Your trip down racism memory lane has some early signs of Dem-entia. If liberals have managed to weaponize immigration to their political advantage, it might actually balance the active voter suppression efforts of the Republican party. Besides, if immigrants are helping to oust the worst regime this country has ever seen—next to Dubya, of course—than kudos! My blogvesary, after losing every argument in the 21st century, is climbing into Mr. Peabody’s Way Back Machine for the sole purpose of arguing how Republicans were the progressives on the lead up to the civil war. What? An orange, Mussolini-like wrecking ball is occupying the oval office, right now! Look at him! Look at him! Stop trying to hide behind Jackson v Lincoln, which has little to no relevance.

Retraction Alert: you would not be the guy in 1930s Germany ignoring the rise of Hitler only to hyper-focus on the shortcomings of his rival, Hindenburg; you’d be the guy attributing the problems of the day to the Teutonic knights, who never should have let those liberal Templars “suck all the fun out of the 12th century.”

This article is in response to Pokey McDooris’s most recent, here.

First off, you’ve had over 150 years to study the lead up to the civil war and you’re still getting it wrong? Hey, but you have answered an age old question:

How long does it take for Republicans to figure shit out?

Answer: D. They don’t.

We all know the platforms of our political parties switched over a twenty year period around the time of the civil war. This was an era wherein both parties agreed that big government was the way forward, but only because we, as a nation, were united in our quest to become the United States. One historian, Eric Rauchway attributes this platform reversal to William Jennings Bryan, here. This same historian marks the official end of this transition as way later than most and with the advent of the New Deal. Of course, everything mentioned in your last article resides in this temporal ideological-taint, if you will.

Making such correlations with old party affiliations is fairly meaningless, but what lies at the heart of your confusion is the south, which has also flipped affiliations over the years. They remain the folks steadfast in their dislike of those “other folks”. Try following their voting record to find the truth, truth seeker. Even the 60s civil rights movement can be divided more by region than party. Civil rights passed via the northern Dems and their Democratic president.

“Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans.” —The Guardian

So pre-civil war it was about the platform switcheroo and every issue since probably falls more along that Mason Dixon line than those lines you’re snortn’. The south has always had a stranglehold on bigotry so, of course, they found a home in today’s Republican party. What next, Adam and Eve were Republicans and the residents of Sodom & Gomorrah were liberals? …wait, bad example. [Winslow: Yeah, Trump owns Sodom & Gomorrah] Sure the Democratic party needs to get it’s shit together, but the GOP needs to pack up its shit and get the hell out of the House. …Oh, thank you.

Ultimately racism speaks to a level of consciousness, not a party affiliation, but today the connections between racism and the elephant in the room is pretty clear. Even if everything in your last article is dead on, what the hell does it have to do with you and your shit-show of a party today? What does it have to do with the pending demise of our republic?

I realize this sounds like hyperbole to you, but the truth always does. Is there a warning sign you haven’t missed since we started this debate, post 9/11? Speaking of which, $6 trillion has been spent to further fuck up the Middle East since then. That’s something else I saw coming and you didn’t. As for your posed question, who prospers from a “you work, I eat,” philosophy, how about the people who don’t starve? In light of recent military spending statistics, isn’t this question more disturbing? “You contract? I bomb.” Stop sweating the little shit and look toward the cresting mega turds on the horizon.

Essentially your historical thesis is: Republicans were really the rock stars of history, but over the last twenty years …Ass-clown Hitler. Wow. Meanwhile, if Whitaker ends the Mueller probe it’s over and if Kavanaugh is the deciding vote on the Supreme Court that absolves Trump, it’s over. Your ilk has unknowingly brought us to the brink, again. Stupidity and greed is not an ideology, Poke. Wean yourself off of Foxal matter. The uneducated minority cannot hold the rest of us hostage for much longer. Understand your place in history, which, if relegated to the dust-bin, would be the best possible outcome for The GOP. Trust me, the alternative will be far, far worse. I realize you still don’t know what I’m talking about and that’s the whole problem in a nut house *cough* …nutshell.


(Visited 112 times, 1 visits today)
Mick Zano

Mick Zano

Mick Zano is the Head Comedy Writer and co-founder of The Daily Discord. He is the Captain of team Search Truth Quest and is currently part of the Witness Protection Program. He is being strongly advised to stop talking any further about this, right now, and would like to add that he is in no way affiliated with the Gambinonali crime family. 

  12 comments for “Death Racism 2000: Does History Suggest Libs Are Winning Or Losing The Tolerance Race?

  1. pokey
    November 20, 2018 at 4:38 PM

    Democrats and Racisms–A Love Story. The point of my article–Democrats love to exploit the issue of race and divisive identity politics. The Democrats are the ones today who exploit the issue of race by defining their political adversaries as “racists.” Ie.

    Racism is a complex issue, but the Democrats are quick to make it a black-white issue. The liberal narrative shows us that every act of racial hatred should be blamed on the Republicans (in particular Trump) Charlottesville–blame it on the Republicans, Pittsburgh Synagogue–blame it on the Republicans.

    When we look closer, we find that racism is a much more complex issue. Take Charlottesville–organizer, Jason Kessler, is not that stereotypical neo-nazi that we might expect. I’ve read many interviews with Kessler’s friends and ex-girlfriend, who say that Kessler was active in the 2008 Occupy Charllotsville Rally and supported Barrak Obama. Kessler actually comes from a far Left Wing perspective. So how did he come to be a “Unite the Right” organizer? That’s a good question. I would speculate that many people who are taught and encouraged to identify with their race over their nationality (Which is what Left wing Multi-Culturalism does), ultimately inspires Caucasians to finally say–“well, if Black Lives Matter, and La Rosa Matters, then maybe White Lives Matter too. Maybe its time for me to support MY race–the white man’s race.

    *I think there is evidence that the racial and identity politics played by the Left actually inspires the modern wave of White Supremacy.*

    Me and the Republicans–we stand with Martin Luther King who dreamed of a day when his children would not be judged (or exploited or categorized) by the color of their skin. No, I don’t believe in nor support identity politics (that’s the Democrats game)–I’m an American nationalist–every citizen is simply an American.

    One more example of the complexity of racism. A few weeks ago James Polite was arrested for spray painting “Kill all Jews” on a Synagogue in New York City. I sifted through some articles by the New York Times to discover Polite’s odd history. He was a black man who had attended a gay rights rally for Barak Obama in 2008, where he was recruited to work as an intern at an organization whose mission was to combat Hate Crimes, sexual assault and domestic violence.

    One of the NYTs articles recorded an interview with Mark Molinari, the commanding officer of the police departments Hate Crime Task Force. Molinari said that Anti-Semitism is on the rise in NYC. Over the last year there has four times as many hate crimes directed at Jews as directed against blacks, and twenty times as many hate crimes against Jews as against Transgender. Molinari also states that during the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing organization. NOT ONE. Of course, these facts didn’t stop the NYTs in the very next sentence to justify blaming these attacks on “Right Wing websites” anyway. Nor did the fact that the Pittsburgh shooter was anti-Trump stop the Liberal Press from blaming Trump for the shooting.

    I do not blame the democrats for modern racism, per say–I do blame the modern Democrats for the exploitation of race for political benefits. I bring up the Democrats shady history with racial politics to emphasize the point that it is time for them to stop pointing the finger.

  2. pokey
    November 21, 2018 at 8:55 AM

    I checked: 6 Senate Republicans voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill; 21 Democrats voted against it. 34 House Republicans voted against the Bill and 73 House Democrats voted against the Bill. Among those who opposed the Bill–Robert Byrd, Grand Dragon of the KKK (lifelong friend of the Clintons), and Al Gore Sr. (father of Clinton’s Vice President.)

    Oh, I know–the Democrats try to push a “good ole boy South” narrative, and how the Republicans switched and became the party of the racist South, but that’s a gross misrepresentation. It is somewhat complicated–but in order to show the falseness of the narrative you’ve been indoctrinated into, let me state the fact that of all the Dixiecrats who broke away form the Democratic Party and of all the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only one switched to the Republican Party–Strom Thurmond

    So how did the South become Republican? The industry boom of the 1940s and 50s opened the “New South” to a more free-market philosophy. It is a fact that it was the wealthier and more industrial southerners who first switched to the Republican Party. During the Civil Rights period of 50s and 60s, it was the least racist white Southerners who became Republicans and the most racist white Southerners who stayed Democrat. In the late 70s and 80s, as the Democrats moved further to the left of social issues (abortion, drugs, pornography, and no prayer in school), Reagan’s message of free-market, patriotism, pro-life, school prayer, and family values won over the Old South.

    In a nutshell–it was class (not race) that began the exodus of the South from Democrat to Republican, and it later the conservative social issues sealed the deal.

    • Mick Zano
      November 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM

      It’s not a gross misinterpretation, but it is complicated. But let’s address the mongo issues of our time. I think it’s secondary to what is happening today. We can list off the recent republican atrocities, and the real problem is – that list is about to double. Why ignore that?

      That citation on the votes for the civil rights act was from the Guardian, so I can’t believe it’s wrong. What are you checking, Breitbart?

      • Mick Zano
        November 21, 2018 at 1:08 PM

        I always try this ‘let’s try to put things into perspective’ thing …that never seems to work. Barack Obama chose not to investigate the known war crimes under the Bush and Cheney regime and yesterday we find out 1. Trump pressured his DOJ to arrest Hillary Clinton and 2. for the same crime his daughter is apparently still committing today. Hello! Is any of this registering? Oh, that’s right, it’s really hard to register depending on the district. At some point it reaches levels of absurdity that even republicans should be equipped to take notice.

        • pokey
          November 23, 2018 at 8:50 AM

          Your Guardian article made the convenient distinction of 100% of “Union” Democrats…I knew that Byrd and Gore voted against it.

          My recent fact-based hyperbolic rants are not meant to show that the Democrats are racists. No, I don’t wish to degrade the conversation in such a way. But Throughout my adult life I have watched the Democratic Party paint their political adversaries as racists time and time again. Never had I heard the suggestion that Donald Trump was a racist UNTIL he became a political threat to the Democratic Party, now there’s a constant stream of media narrative pushing the assumed and unquestionable “fact” of Trump’s racism. Throughout his life, nobody ever suggested that Kavanaugh was anything but respectful to women, UNTIL he became a threat to the Democratic dogma, then a constant stream of media narrative pushed the assumed and unquestionable “fact” that Kavanaugh is a “rapist.”

          I agree, we’ve got real issues to address–but this last year, the media narrative (and the Discord narrative) forced me to spend hours of time uncovering the truth behind the “Treasonous Trump-Russia Collusion” claim and the “Brett Kavanaugh Racist” allegations. But all of the facts that I uncovered showing falseness of such assertions didn’t leave a dent in the Democrat’s consciousness. “Thank you, Mr. McDores for providing me with such compelling information. I’m happy to change my perspective based on the evidence. No, the Democrats are still talking about impeaching Kavanaugh for being a rapist and impeaching Trump for committing treason with zero evidence for either.

          All the while, the caravan of “asylum seekers,”who only last week you alleged to be mere Republican campaign rhetoric is arriving in real time. Around the world, our nation’s enemies are watching to learn just how we will respond to this challenge. And the mainstream Democrats see potential voters, and mainstream Republican see potential slave labor for their doners–and I say that THAT’S the real racism in our nation.

          So, please. Let’s get beyond the character assassination, the name-calling, digging up of dirt, and the demonization of our adversaries. Let’s focus on one crisis at a time; solve it in the best interest of our nation, and then move on to the next.

          I think that immigration would be a good place to start…

          • Mick Zano
            November 23, 2018 at 11:27 AM

            Thank you, for providing me with such compelling information. You demon! Ha.

          • Mick Zano
            November 24, 2018 at 12:46 PM

            I don’t. In fact, i think it’s the problem. Our first order of business is the authoritarian-minded man-child in office. If you were about to step on a diamond back in the Sonoran desert, you’d be more concerned about the scorpion over the next ridge. But i hear those scorpions are starting a caravan… If everything goes down exactly the way i predicted, again, will you start to take notice? Inquiring minds want to know.

            • pokey
              November 27, 2018 at 8:37 AM

              Remind me again of your prediction on exactly how everything will go down. Oh wait, now I remember–“These caravans tend to peter out,” or as your fake news sources predicted “cooked up imaginary caravan,” “caravan is a lie,” “fantasy of the caravan,” “mostly women and children.”

              Looks like in this case, Trump predicted exactly how this would go down.

  3. Pierce Winslow
    Pierce Winslow
    November 28, 2018 at 8:48 AM

    What news are you watching? The news I remember hearing never said that the caravan wasn’t real; they had footage of it every day. They had interviews with the caravaneers and back stories on why they are headed this way and what they were hoping for when they got here. The news simply put the issue into perspective: the caravan consists of refugees fleeing the violence and corruption of their home countries to some place less likely to end up with their sons being Shanghaied by cartels, their daughters being raped by gangs, and maybe avoid being shot dead in the street for not being happy about those other things. Ironically the sudden influx is being caused by Trump’s threats to close the border altogether. Interesting that Trump’s portrayal of the tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free as being the greatest threat to our sovereignty today stopped as soon as the polls closed. I didn’t see anything sensationalist or inflammatory about it from anyone except the right-wingnut propaganda machine, oh, and the President of the Unites States.

    • pokey
      December 4, 2018 at 8:32 AM

      I am primarily referring to a November 5th article in the Daily Discord–“Calm Down America!…These Caravans tend to Peter Out.” The article states, “current estimate suggest roughly 20% of the caravan will reach the U.S. border aka a couple hundred. The article goes on to say that Trump is “repeating a hyped up issue.” It further suggests that it was doing so to rev up the base for the midterms.

      Questions: if the circumstances of these Hondurans meet the requirements for refugee status, then which Hondurans don’t? Is our nation required by law to accept every Honduran who applies for refugee status?

      • Mick Zano
        December 4, 2018 at 9:32 PM

        Yes, i agree with that article you cited.

        • pokey
          December 5, 2018 at 8:26 AM

          My sources have told me that significantly more than 20% of caravan arrived at the border–at least 85%. My sources tell me that more than a couple hundred from the caravan have reached the border–I’m told a few thousand. It should be simple to verify. Oh, okay. i checked. Your sources sources are wrong. Mine (and Trump) are correct.

          Glad we could get to the bottom of it. Now that we’ve established the objective facts we can unite upon sensible policy to address the invasion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *