Parler-like site Gab was hacked, 70 GB of data is now in the hands of an activist group

Not open for further replies.


Posts: 272   +502
Yes I was because the courts were dismissing all voting fraud evidence. And by your comment you are too.
In ~60 court cases on the general election none even alleged fraud. So of course no fraud was proven! Many were so ridiculous that they were laughed out of court. The famous affidavits were worthless e.g. "I solemnly swear that I'm suspicious", often done online and anonymously. Of course this non-evidence was dismissed!! Note: there may have been an additional case that did allege and prove some insignificant fraud; I'm not sure.

Of course with 150M+ votes there will be some fraud. Routine post-election audits by the states are turning up the usual and expected dozen or so illegal votes and charging those involved, which are at least half pro-Trump. There was no significant fraud. The election was not stolen. To say so is to propagate the Election Steal Big Lie which - like the 1920's German Big Lie after which it is named - will go down in history as a landmark in misinformation and political duplicity.


Posts: 1,317   +1,238
TechSpot Elite
I was considering posting that Time article about how a bunch of wealthy bipartisan think tanks got together to "secure" (lol) the 2020 election so that the Correct Outcome could take place, but what's the point?
I can't believe you people are still talking about this. Everyone has seen it.
There was nothing wrong with that meeting and was nothing more than a political strategy. I will never get used to the trump fans ability to turn lies, conjecture, and complete fear of everything around you into imagined reality.

Axle Grease

Posts: 204   +134
The KKK absolutely was a Democratic-run organization until the Civil Liberties Act. As soon as equal rights for all were floated, especially the voting rights, a huge number of Democrats left for the Republican party. They were known as Dixiecrats and began the decline of the Republican party. Before they defected under the looming threat of equality for all Americans, those were the ones Malcolm X and King were talking about and both in fact spoke highly of the Democratic party from thereon. (for the most part, blind faith in one source despite the facts is also what the Republican party became).
Besides Malcolm X's comments were for white people who were using black folks and they moved to the Republican party.

Hey lookie. You just did what you accuse others of doing. Full circle! Bravo!

I'm not from the U.S. but I am very interested to know if your claim about a large number of Dixiecrats abandoning the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party is factual. Can you link to the relevent stats that prove this was the case?
Has it crossed any of you people's minds that all thos could just be to get people to let them take more freedoms from the people..that all this crap could be both sides working together to make all of us go after each other...1 no hacker is going to chose sides for political bs..2 no hacker would give 2 craps about user data from people just mouthing off 3 no hacker would help government or law enforcement so wake up and get smarter than them..

Axle Grease

Posts: 204   +134
Fine, but you really could have just searched "Dixiecrat".

This is a wiki link but all facts are referenced and can be followed.

From the article:
"President Lyndon B. Johnson, although a southern Democrat himself, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. This led to heavy opposition from both Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, many white southerners switched to the Republican Party at the national level. Many scholars have said that Southern whites shifted to the Republican Party due to racial conservatism."

Best (and maybe even more confusing) is the percentage of D vs R that voted for the Civil Rights Act. But it was almost entirely based on location and those Dixiecrats that joined with existing Republicans to form the current day hallucinogenic drug known as Conservatism.

I saw those figures, too. No reason to be confused by them. Larger proportions of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

I'll post them here just because...

By party

The original House version:[25]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[26]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[25]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[25]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

I also read the wikipage on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found this:

"After Johnson signed the Act into law, newly enfranchised racial minorities began to vote for liberal Democratic candidates throughout the South, and Southern white conservatives began to switch their party registration from Democrat to Republican en masse.[139]:290".

So I had a look at the reference, and the claim is made by "Richard H. Pildes".

"These voters were, on average, much more liberal than the median voting
white Southerner had been before 1965. No longer could conservative, oneparty political monopoly be maintained. Over the next generation, these new voters ripped asunder the old Democratic Party of the South, eventually
fragmenting it into two parties: a highly conservative Republican Party, into
which many of these formerly Democratic Southern voters fled, and a new,
moderate-to-liberal Democratic Party that was more in line ideologically with
the rest of the Democratic Party nationwide. There was, of course, a selfreinforcing feedback dynamic to this whole process as well; as the Democratic Party became more liberal in the South, more conservatives fled; as more conservatives fled, the Democratic Party became even more liberal. At the national level, the progressive strands on racial issues that had existed in the Republican Party diminished, to be replaced by a more conservative stance on racial issues, while the Democratic Party at the national level became the party of racial liberalism."

It's Pildes that is confusing. I would like to verify his claims with some dry stats. They're hard to find! He doesn't provide any. Why would masses of Dixiecrats flee to a Party that is more supportive of Lyndon B. Johnson's position than his own Democratic Party? What does Pildes mean when he says the old Democratic Party was fragmented into a "highly conservative Republican Party" and a "moderate-to-liberal Democratic Party" when the Republican Party was born pre-Civil War? He's referring to the same Democratic Party with a "liberal" side and a "highly conservative" side and labeling the "highly conservative" side the "Republican Party", is he not?
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.