Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party – If They Ever Really Were

[GreenBean]

Blacks left the republican party for a reason,

It started with the guy in my avatar picture, the last of the good Democrats ... but then he was executed in 1963 ... the Democratic Machine under LBJ picked up the Ball and introduced a new form of slavery and the more astute blacks are only now escaping the plantation in droves. - not the dumb asses like you IM2 - you're an ignorant cotton picker and allways will be.

Re: "You don't get to tell us as blacks today how we were not slaves and you are not responsible because you were not alive" ... Uh sorry little fella ..Yes we do ... you were never a slave in the historical sense of the word, in fact you're just another pampered little pansy who wallows and waddles in the muck and mire of your sense of Opression and entitlement. Guess what 'bro' - you ain't entitled to shit that you didn't earn. My ancestors were conquered - has their land taken away and were put on reservations but you don't and won't see me playing a violin with a hand out cup at my feet . .... you fkng ignoramus.

 

[IM2]

Blacks left the republican party for a reason,

It started with the guy in my avatar picture, the last of the good Democrats ... but then he was executed in 1963 ... the Democratic Machine under LBJ picked up the Ball and introduced a new form of slavery and the more astute blacks are only now escaping the plantation in droves. - not the dumb asses like you IM2 - you're an ignorant cotton picker and allways will be.

Re: "You don't get to tell us as blacks today how we were not slaves and you are not responsible because you were not alive" ... Uh sorry little fella ..Yes we do ... you were never a slave in the historical sense of the word, in fact you're just another pampered little pansy who wallows and waddles in the muck and mire of your sense of Opression and entitlement. Guess what 'bro' - you ain't entitled to shit that you didn't earn. My ancestors were conquered - has their land taken away and were put on reservations but you don't and won't see me playing a violin with a hand out cup at my feet . .... you fkng ignoramus.

If you are a Native American you got reparations. Be quiet. But you aren't one. You are white. So you have nothing to say.

 

[sealybobo]

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

You claimed black racism existed while denying any type of white racism. You claimed to have gone to a black school in the 1960s and blacks were racists.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

But you refused to even try to understand why that in the 1960's, blacks didn't like white people. You dismissed the lifetme of severe and overt white racism these people endured to call them racists. You claimed racism on a job where you were a supervisor of blacks because you got spit on by a black man. I'm not justifying what the mam did, you should have knocked his teeth out. But did he spit on you because you were white, or because you called him out in front of all the workers?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

You want me to say there are black racists when blacks have done nothing the likes of things whites have done and you want to take the anger blacks feel about what whites do and have done to cry abut blacks beg racists.

You don't get to have amnesia. You will face what whites have done. What you call racism by blacks is not racism. It is the angry reaction and response to the racism of whites. Surely you can't be sane and think that whites can do as they have consistently done to POC and logically expect that we all are just going to ignore it. And you can't understand how that kind of attitude can be called racist or white supremacist.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

I’m right in between you two. That means I’m about as fair and balanced as you’re going to get. I see when im2 is right. He’s not 100% wrong you know.

It’s like the Jews and Palestinians. The Jews act like they are 100% in the right. As someone who’s not a Jew or Arab I can see they are not and neither are you

 

[Correll]

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

I’m right in between you two. That means I’m about as fair and balanced as you’re going to get. I see when im2 is right. He’s not 100% wrong you know.

It’s like the Jews and Palestinians. The Jews act like they are 100% in the right. As someone who’s not a Jew or Arab I can see they are not and neither are you

Have you read up on the studies challenging the normal narrative of the Southern Strategy?


Have you ever read up, and seriously questioned any of the arguments made in DEFENDING the claim of the Southern Strategy?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

We’ve looked down south and what we see are rich white communities and right next to them poor black communities. Quit acting like southern blacks vote republican because they don’t

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.

What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.

What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

So I have a question and a comment. Are you intentionally making racist comments or racially charged comments? I ask because there is a poster here who is hypersensitive to being called a racist but makes comments of a nature similar to the ones you've made here. So while I won't assume that you are (some are proudly so) the use of the word "uppity" when referring to black people has a racist connotation since the original term was "uppity ******(s)".

As to my comment it has to do with you stating "if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist". It is this mindset which led to Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman yet every time I ask under what authority did Zimmerman follow (surveill / stalk) and then attempt to confront and question Martin (detain & interrogate) my inquiry is met with complete silence or deflection.

I already know the answer to the question, I'm just trying to see if anyone else does and so far it's not looking good.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

An apologist for Democratic Racist History - is that what you are now ? Stop making excuses for the klans men and slave holders .

Excuses are like assholes everybody has one, you are one.

That is fucking idiotic, but exactly what I would expect of you! I am not an apologist for anything. If you think that I am, than your reading comprehension is abysmal, or , more likely, you're knowingly lying .

 

[katsteve2012]

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.


What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

You claimed black racism existed while denying any type of white racism. You claimed to have gone to a black school in the 1960s and blacks were racists.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

But you refused to even try to understand why that in the 1960's, blacks didn't like white people. You dismissed the lifetme of severe and overt white racism these people endured to call them racists. You claimed racism on a job where you were a supervisor of blacks because you got spit on by a black man. I'm not justifying what the mam did, you should have knocked his teeth out. But did he spit on you because you were white, or because you called him out in front of all the workers?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

You want me to say there are black racists when blacks have done nothing the likes of things whites have done and you want to take the anger blacks feel about what whites do and have done to cry abut blacks beg racists.

You don't get to have amnesia. You will face what whites have done. What you call racism by blacks is not racism. It is the angry reaction and response to the racism of whites. Surely you can't be sane and think that whites can do as they have consistently done to POC and logically expect that we all are just going to ignore it. And you can't understand how that kind of attitude can be called racist or white supremacist.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

 

[Correll]

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

This again? Jesus Christ when are you going to get it through your thick skull that I did not say I went to a black school? I've told you this twice already. It was either Correll or Humorme that told you that, not me.
The elementary school I went to had no blacks at all and the junior/senior high only had two black students; two girls that were sisters and a grade or two higher than me. Okay? Think you can remember that?

Didn't I already explain this to you too? Are you actually reading what I'm posting at all? I told you already that there were three people on shift at the time; me, him and a deckhand. The deckhand was working elsewhere so it was just me and him. I did not berate him, scold him, yell at him or belittle him in any way. I simply asked him if he shouldn't have gloves on for the work he was doing.

I sincerely hope I'm not going to have to tell this shit again.

I don't get to have amnesia? I'm not the one forgetting everything. I've told you multiple times now that I did not say blacks were more racist, only that some were racist. I've had to reiterate the details of my story of getting spit on about three times now. I've had to tell you three or four times that I did not say I went to a black school.

I feel like I'm caught in a time loop or something. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. In your case, insanity is saying the same things over and over again and forgetting the result.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

 

[katsteve2012]

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

You just mentioned IM2 to me in your previous post.....or did you already forget that as well?

I jumped in initially, because YOU mentioed ME, and I spoke for myself in response, which is normal.


Just like the poll that was taken for this thread title,i general polls depending on who is taking them can be biased, or collect data from a select group, to obtain a desired result, just like numbers, polls can be manipulated as well.

So, no you don't speak for anyone that you do not really even know, nor do I.

It is arrogant to think that you do.

It is a collectivist mindset to have certain beliefs regarding anything and assume that what you happen to think applies to a "vast majority" which comprises millions of people.

And your childish "win/lose" reasoning makes you look even sillier.

This is not grade school, or a contest.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Care to elaborate on that.?

why? the statement is right on point, I understood it perfectly

It is an opinion and an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy if you expect it to be taken as fact without explanation and documentation,

 

[Correll]

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

You just mentioned IM2 to me in your previous post.....or did you already forget that as well?

No, and that doesn't change what I said.


I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

I jumped in initially, because YOU mentioed ME, and I spoke for myself in response, which is normal.

I'm not the one complaining about it.

Just like the poll that was taken for this thread title,i general polls depending on who is taking them can be biased, or collect data from a select group, to obtain a desired result, just like numbers, polls can be manipulated as well.

So, no you don't speak for anyone that you do not really even know, nor do I.

It is arrogant to think that you do.

YOur stand against the concept of polling and communication and logical analysis is noted and laughed at.


Yes. One has to be careful with polls. If you think I was wrong in what I said, when I spoke for white people, as a group, you are welcome to try to challenge what I said, or my claim that whites as a group agree with me.

Otherwise, save your drama for some who cares.

It is a collectivist mindset to have certain beliefs regarding anything and assume that what you happen to think applies to a "vast majority" which comprises millions of people.

It would be, if I had just "assumed" as you claim. But I did not.

So, all you are doing is spouting stuff and nonsense.

And your childish "win/lose" reasoning makes you look even sillier.

LOL!!!

This is not grade school, or a contest.

This is a small part of the COntest of Ideas, and you certainly do a lot of losing.

 

[GreenBean]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

An apologist for Democratic Racist History - is that what you are now ? Stop making excuses for the klans men and slave holders .

Excuses are like assholes everybody has one, you are one.

That is fucking idiotic, but exactly what I would expect of you! I am not an apologist for anything. If you think that I am, than your reading comprehension is abysmal, or , more likely, you're knowingly lying .

 

[GreenBean]

Blacks left the republican party for a reason,

It started with the guy in my avatar picture, the last of the good Democrats ... but then he was executed in 1963 ... the Democratic Machine under LBJ picked up the Ball and introduced a new form of slavery and the more astute blacks are only now escaping the plantation in droves. - not the dumb asses like you IM2 - you're an ignorant cotton picker and allways will be.

Re: "You don't get to tell us as blacks today how we were not slaves and you are not responsible because you were not alive" ... Uh sorry little fella ..Yes we do ... you were never a slave in the historical sense of the word, in fact you're just another pampered little pansy who wallows and waddles in the muck and mire of your sense of Opression and entitlement. Guess what 'bro' - you ain't entitled to shit that you didn't earn. My ancestors were conquered - has their land taken away and were put on reservations but you don't and won't see me playing a violin with a hand out cup at my feet . .... you fkng ignoramus.

If you are a Native American you got reparations. Be quiet. But you aren't one. You are white. So you have nothing to say.

You have no idea what you're talking about do you ??? That was only for the people still living on the reservation ... and my people came from the Canadian side of the border ... my line has been part of mainstream society for several generations now and beholden to no one ... we make our own way in the world

 

[sealybobo]

Not that I saw, nor would expect.


What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

You want me to say that there are black racists. But what you call black racism is not racism. It appears that you, like other whites here like you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them about it. If we are then we are racists. You said you were spit on. Why did that happen? You do have amnesia as you seen to have forgotten 241 years of white racism and that counts today as we near year 242 of white racism in America.

And kate stevie wonders why I call you a collectivist.


LOL!!!!

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

I’m right in between you two. That means I’m about as fair and balanced as you’re going to get. I see when im2 is right. He’s not 100% wrong you know.

It’s like the Jews and Palestinians. The Jews act like they are 100% in the right. As someone who’s not a Jew or Arab I can see they are not and neither are you

Have you read up on the studies challenging the normal narrative of the Southern Strategy?


Have you ever read up, and seriously questioned any of the arguments made in DEFENDING the claim of the Southern Strategy?

I hear the right wing spin on everything. Not buying it.

 

[sealybobo]

I've lived in the south, and there are plenty of poor white communities, right next to poor black communities.

Actually, they are pretty intertwined from what I saw.

What was your point about that?

Notice you didn’t say rich black communities next to poor white communities?

Not that I saw, nor would expect.

What is your point?

I don’t know. But here’s a thought. Recently I’ve seen blacks acting out in public. Getting “uppity”. I think they’ve been emboldened by these incidences like Starbucks. Anyways, the one time it happened to me I didn’t argue back. I didn’t dare. Next thing you know their phone is out and they got you on good morning America.

So if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist. This is going to give criminals an advantage

Have you lost your damn mind?

So I have a question and a comment. Are you intentionally making racist comments or racially charged comments? I ask because there is a poster here who is hypersensitive to being called a racist but makes comments of a nature similar to the ones you've made here. So while I won't assume that you are (some are proudly so) the use of the word "uppity" when referring to black people has a racist connotation since the original term was "uppity ******(s)".

As to my comment it has to do with you stating "if I see a suspicious black guy walking around who I don’t recognize in my private condo community I can’t ask him who he’s visiting for fear of it seeming racist". It is this mindset which led to Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman yet every time I ask under what authority did Zimmerman follow (surveill / stalk) and then attempt to confront and question Martin (detain & interrogate) my inquiry is met with complete silence or deflection.

I already know the answer to the question, I'm just trying to see if anyone else does and so far it's not looking good.

What authority do I need to ask someone I don't recognize in my private community who they are there visiting?

What right did Trevon have to get violent just because someone who lived there asked him what he was doing creeping around at night?

 

[MarcATL]

It has not been fair to us blacks to have our taxes used to maintain a system that has cheated us. You pay Native Americans every year for things you have nothing to do with. You paid japanese for things you had nothing to do with at the time the money was paid. You pay Jews for something Germans did to them. But when it comes to blacks we get dumb ass excuses that make no sense when you THINK.

The bible in Jeremiah Chapter 34 verses 8-21 specifically states what the requirements are for the payment of slaves and the penalty for refusal. It tells us this in verses 21-22:

'Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life and into the hand of the king of Babylon’s army, which has gone away from you. 22 I will command, says the Lord, and cause them to return to this city, and they will fight against it and take it and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant."

This happens because they did not do as required by the lord, which was to pay their slaves after 7 years among other things which we can say white America is doing to blacks and other people of color. That is spiritual law. So you can refuse to do as the law requires and watch America get what the cities of Judah got or you can pay what you owe us.

Put down the dumb ass white belief of he wants revenge on whitey. I am not the one who can do that. Spiritual law says "vengeance us mine saith the lord". So then you will pay what you owe one way or the other. God don't care about how fair you think it is for whites to pay taxes.

Damn boy, DAMN!

You better PREACH!!!

 

[MarcATL]

So on one hand you state that you don't have anything against the concept of reparations but then you go on to say that it's not fair to have the tax dollars of whites go to paying them, correct?

How fair was it for our government to institute laws and policies that legislatively deprived an entire race of people opportunities to prosper and their actual rights as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution but which were protected for others? And how much of our tax money as African Americans was paid out (at the point of a gun) to institute and protect these racists policies which benefited others at our expense?

When our government harms it's own citizens by it's policies and procedures, instituted due to the racist beliefs of those running it and drafting legislation, then the epitome of unfairness is for it to continue to stonewall and deny making amends for those wrongs it inflicted, particularly when it has done so for other groups of people it has harmed.

And besides, It's right there in our Constitution, the very first amendment

In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".​

They're not constitutionalists.

 

[MarcATL]

What authority do I need to ask someone I don't recognize in my private community who they are there visiting?

What right did Trevon have to get violent just because someone who lived there asked him what he was doing creeping around at night?

How do you know for a fact that Trayvon Martin got violent "just because someone who lived there asked him what he was doing creeping around at night?"

Your entire post is steeped in bias.

 

[MarcATL]

Have you lost your damn mind?

Yes, he has.

 

[GreenBean]

It has not been fair to us blacks to have our taxes used to maintain a system that has cheated us. You pay Native Americans every year for things you have nothing to do with. You paid japanese for things you had nothing to do with at the time the money was paid. You pay Jews for something Germans did to them. But when it comes to blacks we get dumb ass excuses that make no sense when you THINK.

The bible in Jeremiah Chapter 34 verses 8-21 specifically states what the requirements are for the payment of slaves and the penalty for refusal. It tells us this in verses 21-22:

'Zedekiah king of Judah and his officials I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life and into the hand of the king of Babylon’s army, which has gone away from you. 22 I will command, says the Lord, and cause them to return to this city, and they will fight against it and take it and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant."

This happens because they did not do as required by the lord, which was to pay their slaves after 7 years among other things which we can say white America is doing to blacks and other people of color. That is spiritual law. So you can refuse to do as the law requires and watch America get what the cities of Judah got or you can pay what you owe us.

Put down the dumb ass white belief of he wants revenge on whitey. I am not the one who can do that. Spiritual law says "vengeance us mine saith the lord". So then you will pay what you owe one way or the other. God don't care about how fair you think it is for whites to pay taxes.

Damn boy, DAMN!

You better PREACH!!!

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition