The Boogaloo Bois

Posted by: pdx rick

The Boogaloo Bois - 06/20/20 06:12 PM


A pair of Boogaloo Bois planned to use the George Floyd protests in Oakland, CA as a cover to kill cops, have it blamed on "antifa," and get the race war of their dreams going. Per Washington Post:

Quote:
Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the "boogaloo boys," a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that's exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged Carrillo with murder and attempted murder, and leveled aiding and abetting charges against Robert Alvin Justus Jr., who has admitted to serving as a getaway driver during the courthouse ambush, according to the FBI. Protective Security Officer David Patrick Underwood was killed and a second officer, whom officials have not named, was critically wounded in the ambush. Inside the three vehicles Carrillo used, police found a boogaloo patch, ammunition, firearms, bombmaking equipment and three messages scrawled in blood: " I became unreasonable," "Boog" and "Stop the duopoly."


Carrillo and Justus are not the only "boogaloo bois" currently in trouble with the law. In April, 36-year-old Boogaloo Boy Aaron Swenson livestreamed his search for a police officer to kill, but was arrested before that could happen.

Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/20/20 08:03 PM


While Trump and Barr blame antiFA for unrest at the racial injustice rallies, it turns out the opposite is true as it aways is when it comes to Trump.

How the Far-Right Boogaloo Movement Is Trying to Hijack Anti-Racist Protests for a Race War
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/20/20 08:08 PM



"Boog" is shorthand for the Boogaloo, a libertarian anti-government movement that claims to be preparing for a civil war in the United States.

“Stop the duopoly,” referring to the dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties, is a slogan frequently pushed by third-party and libertarian candidates.

Do we know any Libertarians around here? They're obviously the enemy from within. coffee
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Boys - 06/20/20 08:20 PM

At this point, we should probably just round them up and put them in one of Obama's many concentration camps.

grin
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/20/20 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
At this point, we should probably just round them up and put them in one of Obama's many concentration camps.

grin

What's gross and disgusting is the they present themselves to be normal, reasonable and patriotic citizens, when down deep inside they're actually sociopaths hell-bent on destruction. Hmm

"My way or die" kinda thing. coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/20/20 09:25 PM


The Boogaloo Bois are not operating in a vacuum. Their goals, methods, and personnel overlap with a number of far-right, anti-government groups that also pose a significant threat to law, order, and race relations, from the The Proud Boys, to the Oath Keepers, to the Three Percenters, to the Sovereign Citizens. Don’t forget the Klux Klux Klan either: The Virginia man arrested for driving his truck into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters is head of a Viginia KKK chapter.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/21/20 07:27 PM

Sovereign Citizens are my favorite: I love it when they interact with law enforcement and end up getting tazed. Then they go to court and get contempt jail time in addition to their original offense sentence. They piss off everybody: I wonder how the other inmates react to their constant whining about being sovereign.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/22/20 04:29 AM


Nobody has come to defend these creeps honor - not even the usual suspect(s). smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/22/20 05:36 PM

Although they are all Republicans even Republicans don't claim them.

I won't say all republicans are racist but pretty much all racists are republicans. Most republicans who claim not to be racist are.

They're just so steeped in their white privilege they don't even know they are racist.

That all being said, there is an extreme right coalition of a libertarian bent who are dead set on destroying the duopoly.

It's here where the boogie boys hang out. The REAL right leaning independents.

Ever heard of the horseshoe curve? It's where the extreme right and extreme left come together in their desire to simply destroy the current government.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/22/20 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I won't say all republicans are racist but pretty much all racists are republicans. Most republicans who claim not to be racist are.

This is how I view racism and bigotry.

Righties always trot out that Dems started the KKK. This is true. What the Righties always leave out, because it doesn't fit their agenda, is that the KKK-loving Dems were conservative Dems. These conservative remained Dems until Richard Nixon enticed them over to the Republican party in the late '60s.

Now these folks are conservative Repubs as you point out Greger.

It's not really a Democrat or Republican thing that breeds racism or bigotry, but...it is absolutely 100% a conservative thing that breeds racism and bigotry.

This why it's the conservatives who whine about the Confederate history being erased - it's not the Libs who are doing the whining about the loss of Confederate statues. smile
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/22/20 06:35 PM

Trump claims them, all of them. i remember one instance when they became "very fine people" who just happened to be marching with torches at night and chanting that they "would not be replaces by Jews" (I think). Trump always finds a way to send the signal that these are his people.

This, as far as I am concerned, also means that everybody that supports Trump are just more folks supporting Racism.

Whenever I meet one I always try and ask some questions because I really want to know. It usually goes something like; "I understand that you are angry with those people because their skin color is different. My problem is that I don't understand why". That usually engenders stuff like; "You don't understand" (that one is right), "You will never understand" (I guess), or they want to fight me (I flee). It still doesn't make any sense to me!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/24/20 10:33 PM

It all comes down to tribalism: "People who don't look like me should die. And our chief should get the hottest women and be the richest among us."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 02:48 AM





Each of those racist and fascist rightwing ex-cops sounds pretty disturbed enough to participate in a race war. coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 03:44 AM



The U.S. Military Has a Boogaloo Problem

Quote:
Some of the largest private Facebook groups catering to the boogaloo movement have scores of members who identify as active-duty military.


Why do Rightwingers hate America? Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 05:51 AM



Far-right groups like the “Boogaloo” and “O9A” continue to attract troops and veterans

eek
Posted by: Irked

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 05:33 PM

It is always sad and deeply worrying to be reminded just how deplorable a huge portion of the American population is.

These days, we get stark reminders multiple times a day.

Was it better when these horrid humans remained hidden in plain sight? Or is it better that they identify themselves to the entire world as the murderous, bigoted, devils* that they are?



*They are all, of course, “good, god-fearing, Real American, Christians” in their own eyes.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 05:49 PM


Donald Trump has given these losers in life permission to crawl out from under their rocks. Better to know who they are and deal with each one of them accordingly.

Hmm
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/25/20 07:05 PM

If you reduce this to 'gangs' it gets pretty interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military
Posted by: Bored Member

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 01:08 AM

Quote:

Righties always trot out that Dems started the KKK. This is true. What the Righties always leave out, because it doesn't fit their agenda, is that the KKK-loving Dems were conservative Dems. These conservative remained Dems until Richard Nixon enticed them over to the Republican party in the late '60s.


It didn't take much enticing after LBJ signed the Equal Rights Act of 1964. They automatically became republicans.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 01:48 AM

That sounds nice, but I think it's wrong. I don't know about other states, but most folks who were Democrats in the 1960's here in Georgia remained Democrats into old age and death. Presidential wise Georgia only went Republican in 1972 when Nixon won 49 states, in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states, then in 1996 to present. 1972 and 1984, Georgia went the same as the rest of the country with the Republican winning 49 states. So there's no difference there.

The most telling that most Democrats remained Democratic was Georgia didn't elect our first ever Republican Governor until 2002 along with our first ever republican state legislature. Georgia had elected only 4 Republican House of Representatives member from our inception until 1994. Newt Gingrich was the lone Republican congressman in 1994, all the rest were Democrats. As late as 2004, we still had two Democratic senators Max Cleland and Zell Miller.

The thing here, at least Georgia is the state remained loyal to the Democratic Party. I look on 2002 as the turning point when Republicans took over Georgia, although one could go back to 1996 the year we voted for Dole as president and our congressional delegation went from majority Democrat, 9 D's to 1 R to majority Republican 7 R's to 3 D's.

My point is at least in Georgia, those who were Democrats in the 1960's remained Democrats. There was no mass migration from Democratic to Republican in either the 1960's or the 1970's. The best possible reason for Georgia switching from Democratic to Republican in either 1996 or 2002 was the addition of new, younger voters to the rolls and the influx of folks who fled the north for the south.

For most of my life here, the winner of our elections was decided in the Democratic primary, not in the general election. The general election was just for show. That began to change in 1996 and finally the general election meant something real by 2002.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 04:05 AM


As it has been stated numerous times, it wasn't the "Democrats" by and large joining the "Republicans," it was the conservative Dems who joined the Republicans and they took their racism and bigotry with them. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 04:16 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
That sounds nice, but I think it's wrong. I don't know about other states, but most folks who were Democrats in the 1960's here in Georgia remained Democrats into old age and death.

Blue Dog Democrats by chance? Hmm
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 04:54 AM

Back then, the Republican Party was still the Party of Lincoln, and Republicans primarily represented Northern industrialists. Northern Industry is the main reason the North won the Civil War. Hard to find a more hated combination in the South. Democrats were populists, representing farmers and working men.

As the young were added to the voting roles, that old difference started to change. The final straw was LBJ's Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Republican Party's connection to the rich was downplayed (although still ever-present) and the racial divide used to drive racists into the Republican Party. Not every White person in the South was racist by any means (at least not for those times), but there were enough.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 12:36 PM

Back in my younger days, 1950's, 60's, 70's, we never heard of the blue dog Democrats. Now most folks were yeller dog Democrats derived from the notion that they'd vote for an old yeller dog before they'd vote for a Republican. Blue Dog Democrats is something I never heard of until 2010 when the media tossed that phrase out to denote most of the 63 House Democrats who lost.

I'd like to present a chart from Pew Research on party affiliation to show the Democrats didn't really lose anyone in the 60's and 70's to the GOP, conservative or otherwise.

You can see those who identified or affiliated with the Democratic Party average roughly 45% of the electorate from 1942-1984. With its normal ups and downs. The Republicans chugged along averaging roughly 25% during that time period. 1984 seems to be the turning point when the Democrats dropped to an average of 35% thru 2008. 1984 just happen to be the year of the Reagan landslide where he won 49 states and beat Mondale 59-40% in the popular vote. The nation as a whole had a huge realignment political wise during Reagan which in my opinion carried through to and until Obama as even Bill Clinton governed fairly conservative.

https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

The big move these days is to independents, static from 2000-06 at 30%, independents have risen from 30% in 06 up to 40% today. Both parties have lost folks to the independent ranks. As of 4 Jun 2020 Gallup puts party affiliation at 31% Democrat, 25% Republican, 40% Independent. So the GOP is back to where they were pre-Reagan while the Democrats have dropped 15 points from the pre-Reagan era. Independents are the big winners.

Over the years there has been three huge realignments in voting habits, 1 the Northeast from Republican to Democrat, 2 the west coast from Republican to Democrats and 3 the south from Democrat to Republican. I should add a fourth, some state surrounding the Great Lakes, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota from Republican to Democrat. The Plain and Mountain states have remained Republican for the most part.

I think the numbers prove that the old yeller dog, conservative democrats of the 1960's and 70's remained Democrats for the rest of their lives. It was their off spring that changed and became Republicans. It wasn't until 1984 that the south went entirely Republican, but then again with the exception of Minnesota, the entire country, 49 states went Republican. Bill Clinton carried most of the south in 1992 with the exception of Alabama, Mississippi, North and South Carolina. So the shift has been more recent than in the 1960's and 70's.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Back then, the Republican Party was still the Party of Lincoln, and Republicans primarily represented Northern industrialists. Northern Industry is the main reason the North won the Civil War. Hard to find a more hated combination in the South. Democrats were populists, representing farmers and working men.

As the young were added to the voting roles, that old difference started to change. The final straw was LBJ's Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy. The Republican Party's connection to the rich was downplayed (although still ever-present) and the racial divide used to drive racists into the Republican Party. Not every White person in the South was racist by any means (at least not for those times), but there were enough.

I think you're giving those two, the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's southern strategy too much credit. Sure the south went for Nixon in 1972 as did almost every other state in the country with the lone exception of Massachusetts. So are you telling us the reason Nixon carried 49 states was because of his southern strategy and the 1964 civil rights act?

The whole south went Democratic in 1976, then Republican in 1980 and 84. But again so too did the entire rest of the country with the exception of Georgia, Maryland, West Virginia and Minnesota in 1980 and just one state in 1984 Minnesota. If what you say is true, then it infected most of the entire country, not just the south.

No I think the change was much more gradual in the south. Until the 1990's the south was still sending Democratic House members and senators to Washington and most states still had democratic state legislatures and governors.

The real change from Democratic to Republican took place in 1994/96 and 2002. That 30 years after the civil rights bill and the start of Nixon's southern strategy. This is if one is looking at the big picture and the numbers available.

I will never deny that the south was one racist region back during the 50's and 60's, that's very true. But the change in stripes from blue to red didn't occur then, it was a slow gradual change over a 30 year period, perhaps closer to 40 for some states. . Much like the northeast and west coast under went a slow gradual change from Republican to democrat.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 08:42 PM

I think a lot of that was momentum: The South still had racist Democrats they could vote for in local elections, who had been their Representatives and Senators for a long time. A lot of them actually had a family connection, since their fathers had been in their office before them. They didn't suddenly embrace civil rights, either. 30 or 40 years later, they were either dead or retired.

Reagan was a fluke, like Trump. He won because of his media career and huge name recognition, not his political history. Both of them were actually Democrats before they turned Republican to run for office. Reagan was actually a union President!
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/26/20 11:08 PM

Big difference between the two. Reagan switched parties only once, Trump has done so 7 times. Reagan was a successful governor of California for two terms, 8 years. Trump had no political experience whatsoever. He didn't even play the part of a president on TV.

Reagan won because Carter was seen as inept, the Misery index, the Iran Hostage situation and more. Reagan carried 44 states and beat Carter in the popular vote 51-41 with Anderson garnering 7% of the vote. Trump received but 46% of the popular vote along with carrying 30 states. Reagan went on to win reelection by a landslide winning 49 states and defeating Mondale 59-40% in the popular vote. Trump could very well be on the receiving end of a Biden landslide, time will tell. But it's possible. No, Reagan was no fluke. Trump, yes, Reagan no. Reagan was exactly what a majority of Americans wanted during that time period. Trump, a majority of Americans didn't want him. But he was very lucky to face Hillary Clinton as a majority of Americans didn't want her also.

You're correct, most of the 1960's southern democrats didn't embrace civil rights, but they didn't jump to the Republican Party either. Most continued on being loyal Democrats until retirement or death. The south continued to be loyal to the Democratic Party until the time period between 1994-2002. By then the old yeller dog Democrats were retired or dead.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 06:36 AM


Yellow Dog and Blue Dog Dems explained:

Quote:
For almost a century, a Democratic Party largely dominated by white conservatives prevailed in almost all statewide elections...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 06:39 AM



Southern Strategy explained:

Quote:
As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support
...
smile Exactly what I wrote.

I get that righwingers want to hide and deflect from their history past and present, but you can't. You can run, but you can't hide - because I won't let you. laugh
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 07:34 AM

Actually, Reagan was a horrible governor. He had no previous government office experience at the time he first ran, much like Trump, and he made some major blunders as a result. There are still large groups in California who hate him, like teachers and state employees.

His people committed crimes by negotiating with the Iranians to not release their hostages until Reagan won and took office. This was essentially treason. As President, he mostly went on TV and gave nice speeches that his followers enjoyed, and left everything else to Cheney. He made decisions with the help of psychics, and then by his second term he was pretty far into senility. After he got shot, Nancy filled his role (fairly competently) as again Cheney actually ran the Executive Branch. He may have been what the majority of voters thought they wanted, but he was way less intelligent or competent than Carter, the Naval nuclear engineer.

His administration was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 10:45 AM



It was also because of Reagan as Governor of California that when the Black Panthers were walking around Sacramento open carrying, his racist rightwing white nationalist spine went limp and that is was the start of California's strict gun measures today.

Come to think of it, mebbe if more black Americans opened carried in open carry states, the scared white legislature of those states would ban guns and assault rifles too.

smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 02:50 PM

Quote:
if more black Americans opened carried in open carry states, the scared white legislature of those states would ban guns and assault rifles too.


They shot a little black boy for playing with a toy gun in a park.

They shot a black Walmart customer before he could get to the check out to buy a toy gun.

Black people and open carry is suicide and they know it.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Actually, Reagan was a horrible governor. He had no previous government office experience at the time he first ran, much like Trump, and he made some major blunders as a result. There are still large groups in California who hate him, like teachers and state employees.

His people committed crimes by negotiating with the Iranians to not release their hostages until Reagan won and took office. This was essentially treason. As President, he mostly went on TV and gave nice speeches that his followers enjoyed, and left everything else to Cheney. He made decisions with the help of psychics, and then by his second term he was pretty far into senility. After he got shot, Nancy filled his role (fairly competently) as again Cheney actually ran the Executive Branch. He may have been what the majority of voters thought they wanted, but he was way less intelligent or competent than Carter, the Naval nuclear engineer.

His administration was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.


All of that might be true. But the majority of Americans liked Reagan and still do. Reagan was one of the most popular president seen by America as a whole, perhaps not by Democrats, but by all Americans.

In the latest C-SPAN historian rankings, 2017, Historians ranked Reagan 9th.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall

Then on the question of the best and worst presidents since WWII, here's how the average American see them.

Best and Worst presidents since WWII

2014 Quinnipiac poll
A Quinnipiac University poll taken June 24–30, 2014, asked 1,446 registered voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst Presidents since World War II.

Best President since World War II:

Ronald Reagan (35%)
Bill Clinton (18%)
John F. Kennedy (15%)
Barack Obama (8%)
Dwight Eisenhower (5%)
Harry S. Truman (4%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (3%)
Jimmy Carter (2%)
Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
Gerald Ford (tie) (1%)
George W. Bush (tie) (1%)

Worst President since World War II:

Barack Obama (33%)
George W. Bush (28%)
Richard Nixon (13%)
Jimmy Carter (8%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (3%)
Ronald Reagan (tie) (3%)
Bill Clinton (tie) (3%)
Gerald Ford (tie) (2%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
Dwight Eisenhower (1%)
Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
2017 Quinnipiac poll
Four years later, a Quinnipiac University poll taken January 20–25, 2017, asked 1,190 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst Presidents since World War II.

Best President since World War II:

Ronald Reagan (30%)
Barack Obama (29%)
John F. Kennedy (12%)
Bill Clinton (9%)
Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (3%)
George W. Bush (tie) (3%)
Harry Truman (tie) (2%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
Richard Nixon (tie) (<1%)
Gerald R. Ford (tie) (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

Richard Nixon (24%)
Barack Obama (23%)
George W. Bush (22%)
Jimmy Carter (10%)
Ronald Reagan (5%)
Bill Clinton (4%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (3%)
George H. W. Bush (2%)
Gerald R. Ford (1%)
Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
2017 Morning Consult poll
Including for the first time President Donald Trump, a Morning Consult poll taken February 9–10, 2017, asked 1,791 registered voters in the United States, who they thought were the best and worst Presidents since World War II.

Best President since World War II:

Ronald Reagan (26%)
Barack Obama (20%)
John F. Kennedy (17%)
Bill Clinton (9%)
Donald Trump (6%)
George W. Bush (tie) (2%)
Harry Truman (tie) (2%)
Jimmy Carter (tie) (2%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (2%)
Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (1%)
Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

Donald Trump (26%)
Barack Obama (25%)
Richard Nixon (13%)
George W. Bush (7%)
Bill Clinton (6%)
Jimmy Carter (5%)
George H. W. Bush (3%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
Ronald Reagan (tie) (1%)
Gerald R. Ford (tie) (1%)
Harry S. Truman (tie) (1%)
John F. Kennedy (<1%)
2018 Quinnipiac poll
A Quinnipiac University poll taken March 3–5, 2018, asked 1,122 voters in the United States who they thought were the best and worst Presidents since World War II.

Best President since World War II:

Ronald Reagan (28%)
Barack Obama (24%)
John F. Kennedy (tie) (10%)
Bill Clinton (tie) (10%)
Donald Trump (7%)
Dwight Eisenhower (4%)
Harry Truman (tie) (3%)
Jimmy Carter (tie) (3%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (2%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (1%)
Richard Nixon (tie) (1%)
George W. Bush (tie) (1%)
Gerald R. Ford (<1%)

Worst President since World War II:

Donald Trump (41%)
Barack Obama (21%)
Richard Nixon (10%)
Jimmy Carter (8%)
George W. Bush (6%)
Bill Clinton (4%)
Lyndon B. Johnson (tie) (2%)
Ronald Reagan (tie) (2%)
Gerald R. Ford (1%)
Harry S. Truman (tie) (<1%)
Dwight Eisenhower (tie) (<1%)
John F. Kennedy (tie) (<1%)
George H. W. Bush (tie) (<1%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

Ronald Reagan is still looked back on very fondly. But you can also see the very partisan divide by looking at the names of the best and the worst.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 05:19 PM



According to political scientists, Donald Trump has replaced James Buchanan as the worst POTUS ever, and BAMZ!!!! is one position higher at number 8 than mush-brained Reagan at number 9.

Sounds about right. smile

After all, 63M idiots thought that a narcissistic mentally ill reality TV star with no government experience or knowledge, 6 business bankruptcies, five kids from 3 different women, 26 charges of sexual assault, numerous adulterous affairs, over 4,000 lawsuits against him would make a fine POTUS in November 2016. Hmm

Obviously, public opinion isn't worth much. crazy Professionals like political scientists should make these lists. laugh
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 05:32 PM

The
"thought that a narcissistic mentally ill reality TV star with no government experience or knowledge, 6 business bankruptcies, five kids from 3 different women, 26 charges of sexual assault, numerous adulterous affairs, over 4,000 lawsuits against him"

Should be the starting point of any discussion of The Jackass Trump. WELL DONE!
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/27/20 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


According to political scientists, Donald Trump has replaced James Buchanan as the worst POTUS ever, and BAMZ!!!! is one position higher at number 8 than mush-brained Reagan at number 9.

Sounds about right. smile

After all, 63M idiots thought that a narcissistic mentally ill reality TV star with no government experience or knowledge, 6 business bankruptcies, five kids from 3 different women, 26 charges of sexual assault, numerous adulterous affairs, over 4,000 lawsuits against him would make a fine POTUS in November 2016. Hmm

Obviously, public opinion isn't worth much. crazy Professionals like political scientists should make these lists. laugh

I don't think that many thought Trump would make a great president. If you look at the numbers, it was who the major parties nominate that a majority of Americans couldn't stand.

You had 56% of all Americans who viewed Hillary negatively and didn't want her to become president. Trump was worst, 60% didn't want him to become president along with 25% of all Americans who viewed both nominated candidates, negatives and didn't want neither one. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

and

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

We have Trump due to the choices, decisions and actions taken by both major parties in 2016. When you have only 36% of all Americans liking and wanting one candidate vs 38% who like and wanted the other, those are bum choices. There was a whole lot of voting for the candidate one least wanted to lose, not win, but least wanted to lose. The choices sucked for most Americans in 2016. For a majority of Americans.

You have to put 2016 in its proper context and perspective to fully understand why Trump won. I know, it's darn near impossible to get a Hillary supporter to recognize the fact she was as disliked and as unwanted as Trump was. In our entire history, we never had a candidate with less than a 40% favorable rating, then viola, we get two in 2016. In fact there has been only 3 candidates in our history that has had a less than 50% favorable rating. 1964 Barry Goldwater at 43%, 2016 Hillary Clinton at 38% and Donald Trump at 36%. Another fact, only two candidates in our history has ever had an over 50% unfavorable mark. Trump at 60%, Hillary Clinton at 56%. Even Barry Goldwater at 47% didn't reach 50%.

You can rant and rave all you want about Trump. But if the Democrats had nominate a decent candidate, one that wasn't so disliked by America as a whole, we would never of had Trump. It wasn't that the Democrats weren't given advance warning about Hillary Clinton. They were. Back in Feb 2016, 56% of all Americans stated they wanted the Democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary Clinton. Of course the Democrats ignored all Americans, that was their right. Democrats choose their nominee, not all of America. But all of America choose who will become president. Something lost on the Democrats in 2016. Perhaps they didn't realize or forgot it was all of America who would choose the next president, not just Democrats.

Luckily, it seems the Democrats have learned that valuable lesson from 2016.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/28/20 12:43 AM

The big difference in 2016 is that Trump was disliked for all sorts of valid reasons, while Clinton was disliked for 30 years of mud-slinging by Republicans. Plus of course, some last minute public statements by Comey and Russian hacking released by wikileaks. Not to mention actual criminal acts by Trump's people.

The public's dislike of Clinton was a criminal conspiracy that continues to this day. But not for much longer. Biden's promised he won't be pardoning any of them. We'll see how much public opinion changes when a bunch more criminals from the Trump administration rot in prison where they belong.

I think the latest revelation that Russian government entities have been paying the Taliban a bounty for each American soldier they kill, and the fact that Trump has known about this all along, is going to make a lot of folks rethink their loyalties.
Posted by: perotista

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/28/20 11:57 AM

I always felt that partisan's from both sides of the aisle always fail to see the reality of the big picture. They're seeing the world through either deep red or deep blue colored glasses. In 2016 it really didn't matter the reasons why Clinton was disliked, what was needed was to acknowledge that and move on to a candidate that was seen in a more positive light by America as a whole. I personally think that in 2016 Hillary was disliked because she came across to the less to non-partisan folks as aloof, elitist and fake. One has to remember that for most independents, the less to non-partisans they don't follow politics, the daily grind at all. Most don't become much interested in politics until an election approaches. They're busy with their daily lives, rooting for the favorite sports team and watching their favorite TV show. Politics is something way down the list for them. The reason is simple, they don't have a horse in the race. So they go by their feelings when it comes time to begin paying attention.

So even if it were 30 years of mudslinging, most of the less to non-partisans, the independents probably never heard of 29 and a half years of it. What they saw as an obnocious, uncouth, unmannered, raunchy candidate vs. a fake, an elitist, one heck of an aloof individual. This is why 54% of all independents, the non-affiliated, less to non-partisan's disliked both major party candidates. Their perspective of both was both sucked which resulted in 12% of those folks voting against both.

I'm not a partisan, both major parties disgust me to no end. I like to think of myself as a political realist. Cold hard numbers, cold hard numbers especially if one delves deep into them can explain a lot of things. The explanations that the partisan folks don't want to hear, most won't even acknowledge the facts or if they do, come up with excuses.

The numbers tell me that Clinton was disliked by the way she acted and came across to the people, especially those who pay little to no attention to politics. That was their perspective of her, how they felt about her. Of course Democrats would love her, Republicans would hate her, the rest go by individual perceptions of what they see and hear, how she acts and comes across to them. Aloof, elitist, fake are the three most utilized words expressed by the non-affiliated, less to non-partisan, independent group of voters. They arrived at that perspective of Clinton from what they seen probably from June 2016 through Nov 2016. Not from 30 years as they weren't even paying any attention to her then.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 06/28/20 05:02 PM

Hillary Clinton was America's most admired woman for 17 years running.

People had opinions about her, mostly they were good. Democrats didn't go looking for the nastiest old rich woman they could find, they carefully chose someone with name recognition, qualifications, and experience.

Republicans picked Trump. The media swarmed him and made him look clever and witty. Practically every headline was about him for months. Conservative voters lapped it up and are still licking the empty bowl.

Clinton won by 3 million votes.

There's the truth of it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Hillary Clinton was America's most admired woman for 17 years running.

People had opinions about her, mostly they were good. Democrats didn't go looking for the nastiest old rich woman they could find, they carefully chose someone with name recognition, qualifications, and experience.

Republicans picked Trump. The media swarmed him and made him look clever and witty. Practically every headline was about him for months. Conservative voters lapped it up and are still licking the empty bowl.

Clinton won by 3 million votes.

There's the truth of it.

Conservatives voted for Trump in the hope that he’d ruin other people’s lives, not their own. gobsmacked
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 03:20 PM


Is It Time For Americans To Prepare For Civil War?
Conservative Firing Line

Joe Newby writes there will be no middle ground if the president wins or loses re-election and conservatives should prepare for a coming “bloody civil war” that will lead to fighting in the streets, if Trump hangs on, or retribution against Trump supporters should he lose.



Quote:
For the last few years, leftists have deliberately pushed for a second bloody civil war in America. The mainstream media has embarked on a propaganda campaign to defame anyone whose views fall to the right of Josef Stalin, calling Trump supporters stupid, uneducated hicks, or worse — Nazis.

...

They want the complete destruction of the United States as a free and sovereign republic, and they want freedom-loving, patriotic Americans to either submit or die.


Sounds like someone has severe mental illness to me. Hmm
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 04:59 PM

"calling Trump supporters stupid"

Guilty as sin, over here.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 05:46 PM

Quote:
they want freedom-loving, patriotic Americans to either submit or die.


No. We want to pay them a fair wage, make sure their kids are healthy, well fed and well educated. We want to be sure they have health insurance and a roof over their heads. We want their water and air to be clean. We want them all to have good jobs, beautiful wives and nice cars to drive.

But not just them.

Because all lives matter.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 05:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
"calling Trump supporters stupid"

Guilty as sin, over here.

Me too:

Quote:
Sister-loving, teeth missing, Oxycontin-abusing, racist, bigoted, low-IQs


coffee
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...We want to pay them a fair wage, make sure their kids are healthy, well fed and well educated. We want to be sure they have health insurance and a roof over their heads. We want their water and air to be clean. We want them all to have good jobs, beautiful wives and nice cars to drive.

Now...how is a selfish, greedy, cheap & chintzy, science-hating, alternative facts-loving, homeschool-educated, imaginary sky faerie-believing righty supposed embrace all of that? Hmm
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 06:01 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
"calling Trump supporters stupid"

Guilty as sin, over here.

Me too:

Quote:
Sister-loving, teeth missing, Oxycontin-abusing, racist, bigoted, low-IQs


coffee


Ayup. When they start acting like they have good sense I'll start treating them that way.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 10:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Ayup. When they start acting like they have good sense I'll start treating them that way.


Bow
Posted by: Irked

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 10:19 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Ayup. When they start acting like they have good sense I'll start treating them that way.


Bow


Good sense is definitely a bridge too far.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/14/20 10:47 PM

Liberals are hankering for a bloody civil war, just like Obama came for all yer guns.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/15/20 07:16 PM

I am not convinced that Trump isn't working on a civil war right now. I even actually have company on that conviction (which amazes me but really doesn't make me happy at all).

There is quite a bit of evidence for this one. If Trump actually loses the election I will stop holding my breath if he actually goes easily. On the other hand, if a huge gathering of fat, armed, white bikers suddenly appear in Washington, DC......
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/15/20 08:10 PM

That would be pretty funny. AR15s versus one helicopter gunship. It might provide a powerful lesson in the futility of some people's stockpile of weapons "to preserve liberty".

You can argue until you're blue in the face about the 2nd Amendment being essential for freedom, but it's actually the 1st Amendment and the right to file lawsuits against the government that do the heavy lifting. Guns just seem like a more manly option to the permanently juvenile.
Posted by: Irked

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 12:18 AM

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists. It is moot.

If one uses primacy as an indicator of importance, the first clause (currently, but not historically, ignored) is the operative clause of the amendment. How many people are still alive who voted for the colonel of their county militia?
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 03:46 AM

Yes, exactly that. The Supreme Court has ruled that clause need not be the operative one and that the following portion may be taken as a statement on its own. It's only, like, two lines. It says what it says and it doesn't say what they say it says.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 01:36 PM



Righwingers:

Quote:
You'll have to pry the AR-15 from my cold, dead, hands.

If you insist. smile
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 07:44 PM

Here is the second amendment - the whole amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the first 4 words; "A well regulated Militia" Its kinda interesting. The Supremes, for instance, rarely rule on any regulations passed by congress to do with guns. I think that they handled it by saying everybody can have one but the regulations are the job of our elected. To get control of them all that needs to happen is for congress, and the presidency, to take a deep breath and pas some serious regulations that make sense.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 08:11 PM

Unfortunately the Federal government did not nor does it regulate state militias.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 08:16 PM

Back in 1800 it might have made sense, that the people having equal weaponry with government forces would keep the government in check. (Of course nobody would have made that argument at the time, because insurrections were quickly put down.) But how many individuals owned cannons or other artillery? By the time of WW I, how many owned tanks or large machine guns? By WW II how many owned bombers, or atomic weapons?

Ever since the government has had standing armed forces, this argument has just been silly. When idiots claim it, they should be laughed down.

Hunting, hobby target shooting, or self defense are perfectly legitimate uses for weapons.
Posted by: Irked

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/16/20 09:29 PM

Of course hunting, target practice and self-defense are legitimate uses for guns. But those legitimate uses do not preclude their regulation. (Not intending to infer that you believe the opposite.) the idea that the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure individuals could rise up against the state is specious on its face: the militias were not created to destroy the state but to protect it. The people of the 18th century were much more worried about the corrupting and usurping tendencies of a centralized standing army than the government per se, thus citizen militias.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/17/20 07:14 PM

In the United States, as far as I know, there is only a single "state" militia - the National Guard. There are a bunch of independent, mostly White Nationalist groups who call themselves militias but they are certainly not 'STATE' militias!

the National Guard is, as far as I know, really well Regulated!
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/17/20 07:21 PM

Reminds me of a story. Apparently there is/was a group called the "Canoneers of America". Their members owned artillery and used to go out, on weekends and blow the crap out of stuff. My understanding was that they REALLY loved to blow up barns. Just a bunch of good old boys having a little fun.

I searched for them but never found anything. This was about 45/50 years ago. Guess they are all gone now.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/17/20 07:24 PM

There are dozens of militias. Far right, anti government, Nazi, KKK, Asatru, probably hundreds of them.

For one reason or another they can't seem to differentiate between well regulated and unregulated. Any gang of scofflaws and blackguards can call themselves a militia.

We've got a standing army now. Which also isn't exactly working out all that well either. Just like the kings men and Redcoats of yore once dominated every nation in the world, the US "militia" is stationed worldwide bullying other nations into compliance.
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/17/20 07:28 PM

Here is yet another thought. As far as I can tell Trump has created his very own group of warriors. they are called ICE and they are part of Homeland Security. Unlike our Armed Forces, Homeland Security is led by an appointee of Trump. the hed of Homeland Security is supposed to be approved by the Senate but, I think, not unlike most appointees those slots are filled by 'temporary' whatevers. The Temporary appointees owe their allegiance to Trump as far as I know. They are not sworn in they simply are.

I betcha if you bore down in Homeland Security you will find a LOT of military types serving, and doing the bidding, of the pres?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/17/20 07:53 PM

don't forget the folks in the black vans without designation. Could these be Trump's Blackshirts???
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/18/20 04:36 PM

You mean the ones that are kidnapping people off the street, putting a hood on them, driving them around and then let them take of the hood when they are in a cell and then released of of which happens without a single word from the kidnappers?

We are told they are Homeland Security (Trump) troops and, possibly, federal marshals as well.

These are, we are told, in every city that has a federal office. One can only wonder what they will be doing if
Trump loses the election?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 07/25/20 08:08 PM

Some deranged Trump fans set the Maricopa County Democratic Headquarters on fire, in Arizona. Failed to spread to the state Party headquarters. But the funny thing is that they will very likely get caught because it was all on security cameras.

Not much damage to the Democratic Party, since all the workers have been working at home for quite a while. But it certainly looks bad for Republicans!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/05/20 07:50 PM

Quote:
Two Self-Described “Boogaloo Bois” Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to Hamas
US Department of Justice | Public Affiairs


The Right has spent a good deal of this summer clutching their pearls and acting like they are really horrified by violence and trying to pretend like they sincerely think Black Lives Matter and antiFA are terrorist organizations, when the reality is they just wish they could go back to a time when unarmed black people being murdered by cops didn't even make the news. In reality, a recent study showed that over 93 percent of protests were non-violent, and in reality it probably a lot more than 93 percent because the metrics they used deemed things like destruction of Confederate statues to be acts of violence. Additionally, a good deal of the violence was caused by counterprotesters showing up armed and ready to fck with people (and, well, the poilce.).

A lot of the time, these counterprotesters were Boogaloo Bois. Far-right, Hawaiian shirt wearing, gun toting douchebags who just really want to incite a race war in the United States, in order to give them some meaning in their otherwise empty lives, and who saw the protests as a chance to push the United States in that direction. So far, quite a few Boogaloo Bois have managed to get arrested for various acts and attempted acts of terrorism.

Hmm

Now, two more Boogaloo Bois have gotten themselves arrested. Michael R. Solomon, 30, and Benjamin R. Teeter, 22, were taken into police custody on Thursday after trying to join the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The two reportedly belonged to a Boogaloo Boi subgroup called the Boojahideen, whatever the hell that is supposed to be.

According to John C. Demers, the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, the pair had told undercover agents posing as Hamas members that they would like to "join forces and provide support, including in the form of weapons accessories.

gobsmacked

These two Rightwingers decided that it would be a good idea to try to manufacture a bunch of gun parts for a terrorist group, because they felt this would aid them in their plans to start a race war in the United States. They're basically the Manson family. They could have and would have killed people, as part of this cause that they so desperately believe in — a cause that other supporters have tried to claim is simply "loving the Second Amendment too much," while insisting that all of the memes about starting another civil war are not supposed to be taken seriously.

But they really should be.

mad
Posted by: jgw

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/06/20 06:48 PM

The boogaloo bois are inheritors of Charles Manson. Their tripe has been around for a very long time. Just another branch of the White Nationalists. The FBI has been warning about this stuff for years and, for years, have pretty much been ignored.

Now, in Trump, the whole nest has found a believer in Trump. Don' matter what he says, don' matter the lies, don' matter the ignorance. These people simply live in a different reality and depend on the rest of us to keep it together enough so they can have something to eat.

Strange times..........
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/08/20 04:42 AM

A Boogaloo Boi was escorting Kyle Rittenhouse before he went on his shooting spree. Apparently nearly half of the "militia" agitators in Kenosha were Boogaloos. Color me shocked.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/16/20 03:46 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
A Boogaloo Boi was escorting Kyle Rittenhouse before he went on his shooting spree. Apparently nearly half of the "militia" agitators in Kenosha were Boogaloos. Color me shocked.

The 17 year old boi that was not allowed to be in possession of an AR-15 in Wisconsin? Such law and order peeps those rightwingers are! smile
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/16/20 04:38 AM

The boy got sucked into a cult, brainwashed...and people died.

Not much different really from dozens of other white right wing mass murderers.

No different from the Muslim zealots strapping themselves with dynamite and blowing up the marketplace.

At the moment the United States is basically a failed state. We're gonna be seeing some weird sh*t over the next few years.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/16/20 05:54 PM

Turns out the cop killer was a boog.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/17/20 12:37 AM

Quote:
Muslim zealots strapping themselves with dynamite


That has never happened. It's always some political operative who straps the dynamite on the poor brainwashed idiot (usually a kid) and sends him out to "become a martyr for Islam". It generally has nothing to do with Islam.

Now the 9/11 guys were different, but they were more political than fanatic Muslims.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/17/20 12:45 AM

Quote:
Turns out the cop killer was a boog


I don't think we know who did that ambush in Compton yet, though Boogs have killed some cops recently in other California cases.
Posted by: Greger

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/17/20 01:57 AM

My mistake. I guess killing cops is a pretty popular bipartisan sport these days.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/17/20 01:58 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Turns out the cop killer was a boog


I don't think we know who did that ambush in Compton yet, though Boogs have killed some cops recently in other California cases.

The Boogaloos are false flagging police killings trying to make it seem like black folks are killing cops in order to start a race war.

Hmm
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: The Boogaloo Bois - 09/17/20 08:17 AM

It does seem pretty strange that a Black man would sneak up on a cop car and shoot them for no reason. You've really got to believe in something to take that kind of risk.