LA-SEN: Duke qualifies for upcoming debate

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/david-duke-qualifies-louisiana-ballot-230160

It was based off his reaching 5% in the recent Mason Dixon Poll. It appears the debate will include Kennedy, Campbell, Fayard, Boustany, Fleming, and Duke. It will be held on November 2nd.

[Slow Learner]

Will Norman Robinson moderate it?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sh*t.

[Heisenberg]

Sh*t.

David Duke. He belongs in hell, not in a debate, let alone the Senate.

[Kingpoleon]

Let him in. We cannot hide the extremists away. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the most extreme extremists must be legitimately debated and defeated over and over in the public square. We cannot ban ideologies like Stalinism and Neo-Nazism - they must be defeated in public to show just how terrible and abhorrent these ideologies are.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

[swf541]

Let him in. We cannot hide the extremists away. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the most extreme extremists must be legitimately debated and defeated over and over in the public square. We cannot ban ideologies like Stalinism and Neo-Nazism - they must be defeated in public to show just how terrible and abhorrent these ideologies are.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

[Cashew]

I want to see him go on a rant taking credit for Trump.

[Kingpoleon]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

Besides George Wallace, LBJ, and Schmitz.

[Classic Conservative]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

Besides George Wallace, LBJ, and Schmitz.

Lyndon B. Johnson? What social conservative supported him?

This is going to be intresting to say he least.

[HisGrace]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

I really see no reason why someone who's willing to vote for Trump wouldn't be willing to vote for David Duke.

[DrScholl]

It will not even remotely happen, but if Duke made the runoff with a Democrat and Senate control came down to Louisiana, David Duke suddenly be much more palpable to Republicans.

[Vega]

It will not even remotely happen, but if Duke made the runoff with a Democrat and Senate control came down to Louisiana, David Duke suddenly be much more palpable to Republicans.

Nope, they would absolutely reject him. Can you imagine how big of a headache he would be in the GOP Caucus (excusing how they would get slammed just for letting him in the door)? A good few GOP donors are jews and that might not go down so well either.

So yeah, no, they would have to reject him.

[Zioneer]

Imagine being the guy who polled below David Duke.

[Santander]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Conservative = racist.

[Intell]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

Besides George Wallace, LBJ, and Schmitz.

The inclusion of LBJ as a social conservative is debetable. Him beiing a racist though. *Rolls eyes

[smoltchanov]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Conservative = racist.

Not always. May be - not even in majority of cases. But - not so infrequently..

[President Johnson]

When you thought 2016 couldn't get any worse

Why do you say that? Your views align perfectly with David Duke's.

Social conservatives would never support a bonafide racist.

Besides George Wallace, LBJ, and Schmitz.

LBJ? Wut? One of the most progressive presidents ever who pushed for desegreation and voting rights?

[Kingpoleon]

LBJ was privately racist and mostly pro-segregation until 1963.

[President Johnson]

LBJ was privately racist and mostly pro-segregation until 1963.

Well, he implemented the first civil rights bill since reconstruction in 1957 as a senator. The bill was weak, but not only because he knew he couldn't get more at the time.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

LBJ was privately racist and mostly pro-segregation until 1963.

Well, he implemented the first civil rights bill since reconstruction in 1957 as a senator. The bill was weak, but not only because he knew he couldn't get more at the time.

Honestly, even if LBJ was privately racist (I assume he was but I only read the first two volumes of the Caro books a few years ago and my library didn't have the rest of the series, so I don't know. I could Google it, but I don't really care), his work on Civil Rights during his Presidency sort of negates whatever character flaws he personally had. Just like how George Wallace is evil for supporting and protecting segregation even though there is good evidence that he himself probably wasn't racist or at least not the to the degree of most of his supporters.

[kyc0705]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/david-duke-qualifies-louisiana-ballot-230160

It was based off his reaching 5% in the recent Mason Dixon Poll. It appears the debate will include Kennedy, Campbell, Fayard, Boustany, Fleming, and Duke. It will be held on November 2nd.

In my head, a David Duke debate performance is just filled with Freudian slips. "Yes, I think I have the white—I mean right plan...I said right, not white, OK everyone? I'm just trying to save race—I mean face, here. Listen, at the end of the day, we need to focus on the three basics: cooperation, contemplation, and confidence. We just have to remember the three Ks—I mean Cs..."

[The Arizonan]

*joking* Always bet on Duke.

But seriously, let him debate. It's not like he can even make it to the runoff.

LBJ was privately racist and mostly pro-segregation until 1963.

Well, he implemented the first civil rights bill since reconstruction in 1957 as a senator. The bill was weak, but not only because he knew he couldn't get more at the time.

Honestly, even if LBJ was privately racist (I assume he was but I only read the first two volumes of the Caro books a few years ago and my library didn't have the rest of the series, so I don't know. I could Google it, but I don't really care), his work on Civil Rights during his Presidency sort of negates whatever character flaws he personally had. Just like how George Wallace is evil for supporting and protecting segregation even though there is good evidence that he himself probably wasn't racist or at least not the to the degree of most of his supporters.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but LBJ did work on civil rights for politically self-serving reasons. He even said "I'll have them n----rs voting Democrat for two hundred years!".