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

[Votto]

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?

Dims are no longer a racist party?

Well I do admit they no longer throw squinty eyed spooks into jail like FDR cuz those squinty eyed people just can't be trusted, but Dims do now still discriminate against Asians in other ways, like college admittance.

In fact, can anyone name a famous Asian actor in Hollywood that is not some stereotypical karate freak?

Nope, didn't think so.

And what of those white devils?

Yep, still racist, perhaps more now than ever.

 

[Weatherman2020]

affirmative action gives advantage of one or more races over another. It is systemic racism and you are being hypocritical again

ps

to state either party is "racist" does not hold water

I did not actually say that the Republican party is racist. It is more accurate so say that the head of the party and many racists have found a home and even jobs there.

In my view, affirmative action levels the playing field and ensure that the racial make up of places of business and institutions of learning reflect that of the community. I am not going to argue the racism issue

you will not argue because you have no proof

Proof of what? I am offering an opinion. I'm not arguing it because it is not something that can be proven or disproven. It's a matter of perspective and it is also off topic.

how can it be off topic if I am responding to your claim?

You or someone else brought up the topic of AA. This topic is about who the racists were and who they are now. If you want to talk about the effects of, and remedies for racism, start your own topic,

Like the fact Democrats since inception to today demand to use skin color to deny people jobs and education.

 

[Correll]

Wow.

By just completely misrepresenting what I just said, you just proved my point, that you are completely dishonest and would stone wall any argument, no matter how well presented or supported.


Liberals: All the self awareness of a potted plant.

Horseshit. How did I misrepresent you?. You did not even make a case for whatever it is that your trying to covey. All that you do is spew vitriol about liberals. You could not refute my points and I called you on it. How the fuck is that misrepresentation? Learn how to have an adult conversation or stop wasting my time.

My point was obviously that you and your ilk are too dishonest to admit when/if I were to prove something.


You dishonestly pretended that I "admitted" that I could not prove anything.


In doing that, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I claimed you have.

BOOM, IN YOUR FACE.



It was stupid of you to not see that coming. THis is you with your complete lack of self awareness.



Y

You talk a lot but say nothing. You admitted that you could not prove anything by posting crap that says nothing except to claim that you proved something. Lets take it from the top.

1. What exactly do you think that you have proven and how?

2. How did I not make my case ? Be specific.

1. I said that I could not "prove" anything, if dishonest stone wallers like you were the judge of if I proved something.

2. You dishonestly pretended that I said that I admitted that I could not prove anything.


3. In doing so, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I was accusing you of.


4. And I stone cold busted you on it.


5. EVERY post where you continue to stone wall on that, demonstrates more and more just how incredibly fucking dishonest you libs are.



6. Now you will continue to stone wall.

Still a whole bunch of nothing except bull shit. I'm not playing any more.

It is a whole bunch of you stone walling, exactly like I said you would.

 

[squeeze berry]

so a

affirmative action gives advantage of one or more races over another. It is systemic racism and you are being hypocritical again

ps

to state either party is "racist" does not hold water

I did not actually say that the Republican party is racist. It is more accurate so say that the head of the party and many racists have found a home and even jobs there.

In my view, affirmative action levels the playing field and ensure that the racial make up of places of business and institutions of learning reflect that of the community. I am not going to argue the racism issue

you will not argue because you have no proof

Proof of what? I am offering an opinion. I'm not arguing it because it is not something that can be proven or disproven. It's a matter of perspective and it is also off topic.

how can it be off topic if I am responding to your claim?

You or someone else brought up the topic of AA. This topic is about who the racists were and who they are now. If you want to talk about the effects of, and remedies for racism, start your own topic,

affirmative action is racist AF.
It gives one or more groups an advantage based on the color of their skin.

I would believe that dems as a party are in support of AA and therefore institutionalized racism

 

[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?

Dims are no longer a racist party?

Well I do admit they no longer throw squinty eyed spooks into jail like FDR cuz those squinty eyed people just can't be trusted, but Dims do now still discriminate against Asians in other ways, like college admittance.

In fact, can anyone name a famous Asian actor in Hollywood that is not some stereotypical karate freak?

Nope, didn't think so.

And what of those white devils?

Yep, still racist, perhaps more now than ever.

You use the word "spook" while calling Democrats racist??!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Horseshit. How did I misrepresent you?. You did not even make a case for whatever it is that your trying to covey. All that you do is spew vitriol about liberals. You could not refute my points and I called you on it. How the fuck is that misrepresentation? Learn how to have an adult conversation or stop wasting my time.

My point was obviously that you and your ilk are too dishonest to admit when/if I were to prove something.


You dishonestly pretended that I "admitted" that I could not prove anything.


In doing that, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I claimed you have.

BOOM, IN YOUR FACE.



It was stupid of you to not see that coming. THis is you with your complete lack of self awareness.



Y

You talk a lot but say nothing. You admitted that you could not prove anything by posting crap that says nothing except to claim that you proved something. Lets take it from the top.

1. What exactly do you think that you have proven and how?

2. How did I not make my case ? Be specific.

1. I said that I could not "prove" anything, if dishonest stone wallers like you were the judge of if I proved something.

2. You dishonestly pretended that I said that I admitted that I could not prove anything.


3. In doing so, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I was accusing you of.


4. And I stone cold busted you on it.


5. EVERY post where you continue to stone wall on that, demonstrates more and more just how incredibly fucking dishonest you libs are.



6. Now you will continue to stone wall.

Still a whole bunch of nothing except bull shit. I'm not playing any more.

It is a whole bunch of you stone walling, exactly like I said you would.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

so a

I did not actually say that the Republican party is racist. It is more accurate so say that the head of the party and many racists have found a home and even jobs there.

In my view, affirmative action levels the playing field and ensure that the racial make up of places of business and institutions of learning reflect that of the community. I am not going to argue the racism issue

you will not argue because you have no proof

Proof of what? I am offering an opinion. I'm not arguing it because it is not something that can be proven or disproven. It's a matter of perspective and it is also off topic.

how can it be off topic if I am responding to your claim?

You or someone else brought up the topic of AA. This topic is about who the racists were and who they are now. If you want to talk about the effects of, and remedies for racism, start your own topic,

affirmative action is racist AF.
It gives one or more groups an advantage based on the color of their skin.

I would believe that dems as a party are in support of AA and therefore institutionalized racism

 

[Correll]

My point was obviously that you and your ilk are too dishonest to admit when/if I were to prove something.


You dishonestly pretended that I "admitted" that I could not prove anything.


In doing that, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I claimed you have.

BOOM, IN YOUR FACE.



It was stupid of you to not see that coming. THis is you with your complete lack of self awareness.



Y

You talk a lot but say nothing. You admitted that you could not prove anything by posting crap that says nothing except to claim that you proved something. Lets take it from the top.

1. What exactly do you think that you have proven and how?

2. How did I not make my case ? Be specific.

1. I said that I could not "prove" anything, if dishonest stone wallers like you were the judge of if I proved something.

2. You dishonestly pretended that I said that I admitted that I could not prove anything.


3. In doing so, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I was accusing you of.


4. And I stone cold busted you on it.


5. EVERY post where you continue to stone wall on that, demonstrates more and more just how incredibly fucking dishonest you libs are.



6. Now you will continue to stone wall.

Still a whole bunch of nothing except bull shit. I'm not playing any more.

It is a whole bunch of you stone walling, exactly like I said you would.

View attachment 193812

We've established that you are a dishonest stone waller. I may very well bring it up again, if you try denying something obviously true.


Sorry, WHEN you deny something that is obviously true. After all, you are a liberal.



Here is my first post on your pile of shit. Which you have still not touched.




his is about as far as I got is that wall of bs.


Your premise, includes the very self serving assumption that the GOP is the "party that harbors the racist of today".


In doing that, you are, ironically making a far worse smear against modern republicans than the smear you are complaining about, where they smear your distance, ideological ancestors.


Not to mention, that what they say is actually true, while you are spewing vile lies, and you know it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You talk a lot but say nothing. You admitted that you could not prove anything by posting crap that says nothing except to claim that you proved something. Lets take it from the top.

1. What exactly do you think that you have proven and how?

2. How did I not make my case ? Be specific.

1. I said that I could not "prove" anything, if dishonest stone wallers like you were the judge of if I proved something.

2. You dishonestly pretended that I said that I admitted that I could not prove anything.


3. In doing so, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I was accusing you of.


4. And I stone cold busted you on it.


5. EVERY post where you continue to stone wall on that, demonstrates more and more just how incredibly fucking dishonest you libs are.



6. Now you will continue to stone wall.

Still a whole bunch of nothing except bull shit. I'm not playing any more.

It is a whole bunch of you stone walling, exactly like I said you would.

View attachment 193812

We've established that you are a dishonest stone waller. I may very well bring it up again, if you try denying something obviously true.


Sorry, WHEN you deny something that is obviously true. After all, you are a liberal.



Here is my first post on your pile of shit. Which you have still not touched.




his is about as far as I got is that wall of bs.


Your premise, includes the very self serving assumption that the GOP is the "party that harbors the racist of today".


In doing that, you are, ironically making a far worse smear against modern republicans than the smear you are complaining about, where they smear your distance, ideological ancestors.


Not to mention, that what they say is actually true, while you are spewing vile lies, and you know it.

First of all , I documented the historical FACTS about why, and when the racists left the Democratic party and where they went. Did you miss the part about the Southern Strategy? I'm not saying that all racists are Republican or that all Republicans are racists, only that there are more racists among Republicans. I will add that the dearth of Republicans -both elected and as part of the electorate who speak out against racism adds to the justification for condemnation.

The Republicans harbor racists TO THIS DAY and maybe even more so now thanks to T-RUMP emboldening them and welcoming them into the GOP fold.

Actually, it started to intensify when Obama was elected. The racists all came out from under their rocks to support Rebulicans against him

https://www.quora.com/Are-most-racists-Republicans-Have-there-been-any-studies-done-on-this

There have been some studies done on this topic, but the answer to the question depends on when you ask. When I was a social science grad student in the late 1990s/early 2000s, most of the political science and sociology research on the topic back then had considerable difficulty finding any statistically significant correlation between racist attitudes and political partisanship. On the other hand, if you look at research that has been done since 2008, when the Democrats nominated and the American people elected an African-American as president, you will find that that correlations between racist attitudes and political partisanship have increased.

And there is this:


Republicans are Racists

“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.” – BuzzFeed

And in a December 2015 email to CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, Powell recounted his aversion to speaking about Trump to the press, writing, “You guys are playing his game, you are his oxygen. He outraged us again today with his comments on Paris no-go for police districts. I will watch and pick the timing, not respond to the latest outrage.” – BuzzFeed

Here is more:

The disturbing data on Republicans and racism: Trump backers are th...

At present, the Republican Party is the United States’ largest white identity organization. There is a mountain of evidence in support of this claim. The Republican Party nurtures and cultivates hostility towards non-whites among its voters for the purpose of electoral gain. What is known as “The Southern Strategy” of racist “coded appeals” against African-Americans and other people of color has dominated Republican politics since (at least) the end of the civil rights movement. And during the Age of Obama, American politics has been poisoned by racist conspiracy theories such as “Birtherism," lies that Barack Obama is a type of Manchurian candidate who actually hates America and wants to destroy it from within, efforts to rollback the won in blood gains of the Black Freedom Struggle, as well as unprecedented efforts by the Republican Party to abandon its basic responsibilities of governance in order to delegitimize the country’s first black president.

Donald Trump is not an outlier or aberration. In many ways, he perfectly embodies the racist attitudes and beliefs of the Republican Party in the post civil rights era. Likewise, Donald Trump’s supporters have enthusiastically embraced the Republican Party’s racism towards people of color, in general, and against black Americans, in particular.

As reported by a recent Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll, Donald Trump supporters possess extreme levels — even as compared to other Republicans — of antipathy towards African-Americans:

There is plenty more but I don't want to overwhelm you

 

[IM2]

so a

I did not actually say that the Republican party is racist. It is more accurate so say that the head of the party and many racists have found a home and even jobs there.

In my view, affirmative action levels the playing field and ensure that the racial make up of places of business and institutions of learning reflect that of the community. I am not going to argue the racism issue

you will not argue because you have no proof

Proof of what? I am offering an opinion. I'm not arguing it because it is not something that can be proven or disproven. It's a matter of perspective and it is also off topic.

how can it be off topic if I am responding to your claim?

You or someone else brought up the topic of AA. This topic is about who the racists were and who they are now. If you want to talk about the effects of, and remedies for racism, start your own topic,

affirmative action is racist AF.
It gives one or more groups an advantage based on the color of their skin.

I would believe that dems as a party are in support of AA and therefore institutionalized racism

AA does nothing of the sort. You have been fed a race baited lie that you have chosen to accept.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is quite noticeable that TheRegresiveParasite's denial of racism on the part of his own side, is based entirely on trying to change the definition of “racism” to exclude that in which he and his side openly engage, while including only that of which they falsely accuse their opposition.

This is, of course, exactly the sort of willful deceptiveness that we've long come to expect of him and his ilk.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is quite noticeable that [user]54822]TheRegresisveParasite[/user]'s denial of racism on the part of his own side, is based entirely on trying to change the definition of “racism” to exclude that in which he and his side openly engage, while including only that of which they falsely accuse their opposition.

This is, of course, exactly the sort of willful deceptiveness that we've long come to expect of him and his ilk.

Would it be possible for you to actually put together a coherent paragraph that is written above the first grade level and that actually explains and documents what the fuck you are trying to say? How the fuck am I trying to change the definition of racism and what are we doing that's racist. Spell it out Blaylock!

 

[Correll]

First of all , I documented the historical FACTS about why, and when the racists left the Democratic party and where they went.

If you did, I assume it was buried in that wall of partisan bs. That's on you for hiding any real points you might have had.

Did you miss the part about the Southern Strategy?

Might have, or might have dismissed it as long ago and well refuted bullshit that only dishonest partisans still believe.

From that right wing rag, the New York Times.


The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

"But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."

I'm not saying that all racists are Republican or that all Republicans are racists, only that there are more racists among Republicans.

Save your mealy mouthed bullshit for someone that is stupid enough to not know that you are race baiting, ie only your fellow libs.

I will add that the dearth of Republicans -both elected and as part of the electorate who speak out against racism adds to the justification for condemnation.

And that's a complete load of crap. It is nothing but partisan race baiting bullshit.

The Republicans harbor racists TO THIS DAY and maybe even more so now thanks to T-RUMP emboldening them and welcoming them into the GOP fold.

Wow. I am sooooo glad that the moderators are so careful to watch out for non substantial flamebait.

At what point are you going to start backing up this utter bullshit you keep shoveling? Ever?

Actually, it started to intensify when Obama was elected. The racists all came out from under their rocks to support Rebulicans against him

Sure. THat's why Obama won two elections, because American is sooooo racist and American whites were soooooo upset about a black president.


At what point are you going to start backing up all this utter bullshit you keep shoveling?



https://www.quora.com/Are-most-racists-Republicans-Have-there-been-any-studies-done-on-this

There have been some studies done on this topic, but the answer to the question depends on when you ask. When I was a social science grad student in the late 1990s/early 2000s, most of the political science and sociology research on the topic back then had considerable difficulty finding any statistically significant correlation between racist attitudes and political partisanship. On the other hand, if you look at research that has been done since 2008, when the Democrats nominated and the American people elected an African-American as president, you will find that that correlations between racist attitudes and political partisanship have increased.

Funny you let out the part about the researchers themselves, calling it a small correlation accounting for, they claim,

13% of the INCREASE in republicans identification, of a massive, and I use that term with heavy, heavy sarcasm, of SEVEN POINTS.


So 13% of 7 points, is barely more than a whole point of republican identification.


Wow. And that's the best you could find. That's the power of white racism.


Do you realize you just undermined your own position, massively?







And there is this:


Republicans are Racists

“Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,” Powell wrote. “That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.” – BuzzFeed

Well, that's obviously fucking stupid. It ignores the far more likely and obvious motive. THAT IS FUCKING OBVIOUS, and not racist.


SO, that doesn't serve your vile, shitty motive of tearing this nation apart and down.

And in a December 2015 email to CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, Powell recounted his aversion to speaking about Trump to the press, writing, “You guys are playing his game, you are his oxygen. He outraged us again today with his comments on Paris no-go for police districts. I will watch and pick the timing, not respond to the latest outrage.” – BuzzFeed

[/QUOTE]
You want to pretend that high Muslim immigration for Europe has not been an utter disaster?

Trump used it to play the media, for free air time, sure.

And that bothers you more than, mass sexual assault, or sex slavery of children on an industrial scale.







And that's enough. THe next point was just rehashing the same bullshit claims, in the Logical Fallacy of Shotgun Argument.

 

[Correll]

It is quite noticeable that [user]54822]TheRegresisveParasite[/user]'s denial of racism on the part of his own side, is based entirely on trying to change the definition of “racism” to exclude that in which he and his side openly engage, while including only that of which they falsely accuse their opposition.

This is, of course, exactly the sort of willful deceptiveness that we've long come to expect of him and his ilk.

Would it be possible for you to actually put together a coherent paragraph that is written above the first grade level and that actually explains and documents what the fuck you are trying to say? How the fuck am I trying to change the definition of racism and what are we doing that's racist. Spell it out Blaylock!

It was perfectly clear what he said.


Your willful obtuseness is noted and held against you.

 

[IM2]

How many years will republicans keep lying? How many blacks have been nominated by the republican party for president? How many blacks have been picked by republican presidential candidates to be VP? Where are all the black republicans in the house? What happened to Colin Powell?

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to be a hyperpartisan Democrat. You likely were a hyperpartisan Democrat long before you found out the sordid truth about the Democratic party.

If being told the facts regarding the Democratic party annoys you...and yet you don't have enough common sense to oppose the Democratic party...well... it must really suck to be you, fucking jackass.

 

[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.

Nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to be a hyperpartisan Democrat. You likely were a hyperpartisan Democrat long before you found out the sordid truth about the Democratic party.

If being told the facts regarding the Democratic party annoys you...and yet you don't have enough common sense to oppose the Democratic party...well... it must really suck to be you, fucking jackass.

Jesus Fucking Christ! What is wrong with you? !! Did you bother to read past the tittle of the thread? I told the facts about the Democratic party

 

[Correll]

How many years will republicans keep lying?

Republicans aren't the ones lying, race baiting troll.

How many blacks have been nominated by the republican party for president?

Just like a race baiter. Spend their whole lives spewing racial demagoguery, tearing this nation apart, to the point that well over 90% of blacks believe your vile lies about the GOP,


and then cite lack of black participation in the GOP as "evidence" of their lies.


You are a piece of shit.

How many blacks have been picked by republican presidential candidates to be VP?

Just like a race baiter.

Spend their whole lives spewing racial demagoguery, tearing this nation apart, to the point that well over 90% of blacks believe your vile lies about the GOP,


and then cite lack of black participation in the GOP as "evidence" of their lies.


You are a piece of shit.

Where are all the black republicans in the house?

Just like a race baiter.

Spend their whole lives spewing racial demagoguery, tearing this nation apart, to the point that well over 90% of blacks believe your vile lies about the GOP,


and then cite lack of black participation in the GOP as "evidence" of their lies.


You are a piece of shit.

What happened to Colin Powell?

He was beloved, supported and celebrated until he betrayed us.


What part of that is confusing to you?

Answer: NOne of it. YOu are just spewing more racial demagoguery.

 

[Correll]

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.

Nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to be a hyperpartisan Democrat. You likely were a hyperpartisan Democrat long before you found out the sordid truth about the Democratic party.

If being told the facts regarding the Democratic party annoys you...and yet you don't have enough common sense to oppose the Democratic party...well... it must really suck to be you, fucking jackass.

Jesus Fucking Christ! What is wrong with you? !! Did you bother to read past the tittle of the thread? I told the facts about the Democratic party

You posted a wall of partisan bullshit, that no reasonable person would wade though.


I called on your bullshit in the first couple sentences, and later where you actually mentioned the common lib lie about the Southern Strategy.


If you have something "better" to be crushed up like a bug and thrown into your face,

post it.

CONCISELY.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to be a hyperpartisan Democrat. You likely were a hyperpartisan Democrat long before you found out the sordid truth about the Democratic party.

If being told the facts regarding the Democratic party annoys you...and yet you don't have enough common sense to oppose the Democratic party...well... it must really suck to be you, fucking jackass.

Jesus Fucking Christ! What is wrong with you? !! Did you bother to read past the tittle of the thread? I told the facts about the Democratic party

Your biased conjecture is not the same thing as a FACT, jackass.

The undeniable FACTS of the matter are that the Democratic party supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. The FACT of the matter is that the Republican party was founded to end slavery.

The FACT of the matter is that LBJ enslaved blacks and Nixon emancipated them.

Face it, party of slavery apologists such as yourself are in denial of reality.