CDZ Which political party is the party of the KKK?

[Syriusly]

The bottom line is the Democrat Party was the home of the KKK. It's a fact that can't be disputed. Trying to somehow pin it on Republicans, especially today is a futile exercise in self flagellation.

The fact is that some Democrats were part of the KKK. And some Republicans were part of the KKK.

The narrative that the modern day Democrats are the KKK is even farther from the truth than claiming that the modern day Republicans are part of the KKK.

How does a false statement become farther from something? I already addressed modern day parties and I already showed how they were Democrats. I don't care if you accept history or not. Not my problem.

'history' is not the unsubstantiated opinion of one historian.

PBS isn't "a historian". I've seen very many articles on it. Lefties live the reality they want but that isn't my problem.

You quoted one article written by one historian that was posted on PBS.

 

[2aguy]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

Johnson was a solid vote for the Southern Bloc.....

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation.

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

And then he realized he needed black votes to win....

 

[Syriusly]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

No....he did a lot for the democrat party and destroyed the black family in this country...and through the 1964 act he continued racism through affirmative action...and has allowed the assault on the 1st amendment Rights of bakers, photographers and anyone who has deeply held religious beliefs...just like Martin Luther Kiing........who would have be ashamed of what those 2 provisions in the act have allowed to happen to innocent people...

Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist, and was a civil rights leader...lbj was a racist, but a realist, who didn't let his racism get in the way of getting a vote.

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

....MLK sold himself out to the democrats .

MLK got it right
While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand

 

[Syriusly]

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

Johnson was a solid vote for the Southern Bloc.....

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation.

From your own article:
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero

Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “****** bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

The Civil Rights Act made it possible for Johnson to smash Jim Crow. The Voting Rights Act made the U.S. government accountable to its black citizens and a true democracy for the first time. Johnson lifted racist immigration restrictions designed to preserve a white majority – and by extension white supremacy. He forced FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, then more concerned with “communists” and civil rights activists, to turn his attention to crushing the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[Yarddog]

My opinion: Neither party is the party of the KKK- this is just partisan bullshit. Both parties reject the KKK- no party endorses any KKK members for anything.

There is at least a few threads a week by right wing nut jobs trying to label the Democratic Party the party of the KKK- based upon some rather dubious claims from 150 years ago.

Countering that is the claim by Martin Luther King Jr. that the GOP in 1964 pivoted to appeal to racists and the radical right wing becoming the party of the KKK. That of course was over 50 years ago.

The fact is that members of the KKK historically have belonged to both the Democratic and Republican Parties- and the fact is that it is easy to find examples to scream 'racist-racist' for both parties.

But neither party is the party of the KKK. African Americans have by a large degree moved from the GOP Party to the Democratic Party in the last 70 years. Meanwhile, there are conservative African Americans who have chosen the GOP.

I presume that all of those voters make as intelligent decisions as I make- and therefore none of those millions of African Americans have decided that their party is the party of the KKK.

And old white dudes telling them that their party is the party of the KKK is essentially racist in nature- that they know better than African Americans do.

In other threads, I have made a point of posting MLK Jr's remarks declaring the GOP of 1964 becoming the party of the KKK- to counter the BS claims that the Democrats are the party of the KKK.

I do not actually believe either party is the party of the KKK- but if anyone insists that the Democrats are, because of what happened 150 years ago- I will point out that Martin Luther King Jr. considered the GOP to have moved to becoming the party of the KKK.

It is not really a surprise that those who claim the Democrats are the party of the KKK, also tend to consider President Obama to be a racist, and generally despise Martin Luther King Jr.

I dont believe either party is connected to the KKK either, but as long as democrats try to insinuate that if your a white Republican from the South your racist, and so on, then there's people who will be happy to bring up their KKK past. its mostly partisan

 

[Syriusly]

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

Johnson was a solid vote for the Southern Bloc.....

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation.

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

From your citation:

In conservative quarters, Johnson’s racism – and the racist show he would put on for Southern segregationists – is presented as proof of the Democratic conspiracy to somehow trap black voters with, to use Mitt Romney’s terminology, “gifts” handed out through the social safety net. But if government assistance were all it took to earn the permanent loyalty of generations of voters then old white people on Medicare would be staunch Democrats.

So at best, that assessment is short sighted and at worst, it subscribes to the idea that blacks are predisposed to government dependency.

 

[2aguy]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

This is what Goldwater did...long before he was in politics....unlike LBJ...

Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

To many, Mr. Goldwater was a man of contradictions. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.

 

[2aguy]

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Oh right- any whites who align themselves with people of color are racists to you also.

90% of African Americans vote Democrat- so of course you think that means African Americans are all racists.

But that lilly white Trump crowd, sporting the Stars and Bars caps? No racists there.

Nope....but black leadership in the democrat party is racist...including obama.

 

[Syriusly]

My opinion: Neither party is the party of the KKK- this is just partisan bullshit. Both parties reject the KKK- no party endorses any KKK members for anything.

There is at least a few threads a week by right wing nut jobs trying to label the Democratic Party the party of the KKK- based upon some rather dubious claims from 150 years ago.

Countering that is the claim by Martin Luther King Jr. that the GOP in 1964 pivoted to appeal to racists and the radical right wing becoming the party of the KKK. That of course was over 50 years ago.

The fact is that members of the KKK historically have belonged to both the Democratic and Republican Parties- and the fact is that it is easy to find examples to scream 'racist-racist' for both parties.

But neither party is the party of the KKK. African Americans have by a large degree moved from the GOP Party to the Democratic Party in the last 70 years. Meanwhile, there are conservative African Americans who have chosen the GOP.

I presume that all of those voters make as intelligent decisions as I make- and therefore none of those millions of African Americans have decided that their party is the party of the KKK.

And old white dudes telling them that their party is the party of the KKK is essentially racist in nature- that they know better than African Americans do.

In other threads, I have made a point of posting MLK Jr's remarks declaring the GOP of 1964 becoming the party of the KKK- to counter the BS claims that the Democrats are the party of the KKK.

I do not actually believe either party is the party of the KKK- but if anyone insists that the Democrats are, because of what happened 150 years ago- I will point out that Martin Luther King Jr. considered the GOP to have moved to becoming the party of the KKK.

It is not really a surprise that those who claim the Democrats are the party of the KKK, also tend to consider President Obama to be a racist, and generally despise Martin Luther King Jr.

I dont believe either party is connected to the KKK either, but as long as democrats try to insinuate that if your a white Republican from the South your racist, and so on, then there's people who will be happy to bring up their KKK past. its mostly partisan

I see more than partisanship regarding the South- it is also regionalism. My wife is from the South and through her eyes I saw and realized how the rest of the country assumes that whites in the South are racists, and stupid, and moonshiners etc, etc. Insulting Southerners is one of the few acceptable groups to still insult.

I agree that claiming one group or another is inherently racist is wrong.

As wrong as the Republicans who claim that all Black Lives Matter members, all La Raza members, the NAACP etc are all racists.

 

[Syriusly]

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

This is what Goldwater did...long before he was in politics....unlike LBJ...

Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

To many, Mr. Goldwater was a man of contradictions. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.

And the votes you claim he made?

 

[2aguy]

The KKK terrorized and murdered Republicans.

At the time, for obvious reasons, all Negros were presumed to be Republicans and that is why the Democrats murdered blacks more often than white Republicans. The dark color of their skin was proof enough to identify Negros as Republicans. More proof was needed to prove that a white man was a Republican, therefore the Democrats murdered blacks at a greater rate than they murdered whites.

Those elements - inside and outside the Klan, before and during its existence -- were already murdering and coercing blacks. The Klan once it ran amok certainly persecuted people who were Republicans; they did the same on people who happened to be federal personnel and who happened to be "carpetbaggers" as well as the occasional philandering husband or debt deadbeat. That doesn't make them bankers, priests or communists by some fallacy of exception.

What's missing here is this cockamamie idea that all elements of everything that happens in human history can be reduced to one of two elements, either "Democrat" or "Republican". That's nowhere near the world of reality, which is far more complex than that. Those targeted black ex-slaves for instance, were targeted for trying to exercise the right to vote --- but you left out that they were also targeted for having the temerity (<sarc) to walk into town in public, or attempt to conduct business with whites, or apply for jobs or expect to be paid for them.

Again, the nefarious activities practiced by the Klan were going on long before they existed, and continued long after they were extinguished. And then they bubbled up in the second one. The Klan was one of the symptoms of it. But to try to reduce it to some binary formula of 'one of two political parties' is cherrypicking nonsense.

Another factor here is that its original incarnation existed only in the South --- yet another demonstration that it was a cultural expression. Had it been part of a political party it would have existed wherever that political party did, which was all over the nation. But it didn't -- because it was derived from a Southern cultural background. "Slave patrols" had been around since 1704 -- in the South. All that was new in that vein was the name and the attire. Refer back to post 30 for more extensive background on this.

And again ---these same elements that did similar Klanlike things, existed in dozens of different groups in various regions all (again) in the South. I've listed some of them earlier. We single out the Klan in our time because it was made into a movie and then it was restarted by an opportunist taking advantage of the bigotry of his time, but in its own era the original Klan was one of literally dozens of similar groups popping up all over the vanquished Confederacy -- as well as ad hoc vigilante posses who never took the time to organize into a formal name. What about these groups? Were they all founded by a political party too? Doesn't seem real efficient.

This is a little like singling out a Hyundai in a full parking lot and going "see? Korea invented cars".

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

There's no evidence that either LBJ or AuH2O was a racist, or against civil rights. LBJ took the lead in that area by virtue of his position but that doesn't make the secondary guy a "civil rights leader" either. Your spin here is transparent in its desperation.

As far as governmental machinations neither one was a "bad" guy. They simply came from two different perspectives. Goldwater from the Constitutional-technical side, Johnson from the practicality of the times. Neither one was "wrong" in his point ---- again, the world of reality is simply not the binary-bot one/zero on-off switch you're trying to squeeze it down to.

And as far as "affirmative action" that wasn't what the CRA was about, but fun fact, it was Republicans who started that practice -- whether you want to count it from Richard Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan" of 1969, or earlier from the "forty acres and a mule" land grants to ex-slaves in Reconstruction. Of course, in the 19th century the Republicans were the party of 'big government', a legacy of the ex-Whigs which largely made up their constituency at the time (for example, Lincoln).

As with everything else --- this ain't some binary on-off switch thing.

There is actual evidence that lbj was a racist, and evidence that Goldwater was a civil rights leader.....he actually has a record enacting civil rights policies in his own life and in government......it is well known that lbj was a racist......and voted against every single civil rights act for the first 20 years he was in congress...and against the anti-lynching laws...

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

....MLK sold himself out to the democrats .

MLK got it right
While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand

Yeah...and that is a lie.......what he is saying is that if Goldwater supported low taxes....and racists also support low taxes, then he gave them comfort.......that is how much yoga MKL had to do to make that statement.......

Goldwater was against the 2 provisions in the 1964 act that would perpetuate actual racism...and violate private property rights...and he was right on both counts....Affirmative action was in fact racism....and the attack on private property rights is seen today on the attack on business owners because they hold religious points of view...

 

[2aguy]

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

This is what Goldwater did...long before he was in politics....unlike LBJ...

Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

To many, Mr. Goldwater was a man of contradictions. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.

And the votes you claim he made?

I don't claim anything, they are fact....

Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights

In fact, it was Republican President Eisenhower who proffered the first civil rights act of 1957, which was watered down by White Southern Democrats [see Eisenhower on Civil rights].

This bill, however, was responsible for jump-starting the process of civil rights legislation with protection for voting rights; establishing the Civil Rights Division in the Justice department; and among other things, establishing a six member Civil Rights commission.[1] In addition, a second Civil Rights bill was passed in 1960. Senator Goldwater supported both bills.

While LBJ was voting against lynching laws and blocking civil rights legislation, Goldwater was flying food to native American reservations, desegregating his family stores, Arizona public schools and the Arizona National Guard, he also desegregated the Senate cafeteria

Of the two men, Goldwater was a real civil rights leader.....lbj was a racist politician who put power ahead of his racism.

 

[Muhammed]

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Those that support the party of slavery are stupid, precisely because they cannot admit that they were wrong.

 

[2aguy]

Everything attributed to democrat or republican...no.....the slave owners of the south were democrats, those who freed the slaves after the Civil war and fought for Civil Rights for the newly freed blacks were Republicans.....men who were democrats founded the klan......

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

You're still way off the topic but go ahead and present this 'evidence'.

I don't maintain that "Goldwater was a racist". I've never maintained that, nor do I believe it. But as far as the term "civil rights leader" that has to mean taking initiative, where initiative is optional, where it is not the path of least resistance. Goldwater, other than perhaps introducing bills into Congress and making speeches, wasn't in a position to do that; LBJ was. That's no strike against Goldwater but at the same time it's no strike against Johnson when he actually did it several times, even knowing the risk of enormous loss of political capital. LBJ was the catalyst for it.

Anyway there's no evidence that either man resisted civil rights on racial grounds. Again, Goldwater took the technical position, Johnson the practical one.

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

Johnson was a solid vote for the Southern Bloc.....

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation.

From your own article:
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero

Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “****** bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

The Civil Rights Act made it possible for Johnson to smash Jim Crow. The Voting Rights Act made the U.S. government accountable to its black citizens and a true democracy for the first time. Johnson lifted racist immigration restrictions designed to preserve a white majority – and by extension white supremacy. He forced FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, then more concerned with “communists” and civil rights activists, to turn his attention to crushing the Ku Klux Klan.

He blocked civil rights legislation until it was poltically unviable...then he went along with it....to get votes....he put poltical power over his racism...but when it didn't matter, he voted against civil rights.....Goldwater...his whole life was toward civil rights...in both his private and public life......he helped found the Arizona chapter of the NAACP and the Urban league, while johnson was voting against lynching laws....

of the two men, lbj was a vile racist who put power over his own racism......he saw the writing on the wall and knew that if the democrats didn't buy black votes, they would never hold power again.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Oh right- any whites who align themselves with people of color are racists to you also.

90% of African Americans vote Democrat- so of course you think that means African Americans are all racists.

But that lilly white Trump crowd, sporting the Stars and Bars caps? No racists there.

Nope....but black leadership in the democrat party is racist...including obama.

Yes of course the party of every color is the party of racism to you.

While the party of one color of course is not the party of racism to you.

MLK Jr. was very perceptive - and of course you despise him.

While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand

 

[Syriusly]

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Those that support the party of slavery are stupid, precisely because they cannot admit that they were wrong.

The 'party of slavery' is now the party of African Americans.

While the party of the Lincoln is now the party opposed to Civil Rights.

 

[Syriusly]

You can keep on bleating that until the sun burns up but without a shred of actual evidence. it remains internet message board myth. Why do you keep at this losing proposition?

The slave owners of the South were Democrats --- Whigs --- Know Nothngs --- Constitutional Unionists --- and many who had no party at all. Again, you have to lose this binary on-off switch that thinks everything is made up of either "Democrat" or "Republican" atoms. This planet does not work that way.

John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who won Tennessee's electoral vote in 1860, had been a slaveowner even though he opposed the expansion of slavery. So had Ulysses Grant, who won the election of 1868.

Gran

The whole thing about 'Goldwater was not a racist' is just another strawman.

Not even Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that Goldwater was a racist. What MLK correctly noted was that in 1964 two things happened:

1. Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- passed overwhelmingly by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. And the GOP chose Goldwater to be their Presidential candidate.

By choosing Goldwater, the GOP was making a conscious decision to nominate a candidate that would appeal to the very voters that LBJ and Kennedy and the Democrats had pissed off by pushing through the Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. could indeed be speaking about some of the posters here when he wrote this:

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


It was both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater as its candidate for President of the United States. In foreign policy Mr. Goldwater advocated a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty compelled the attention of all citizens of our country. Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.

Nope....MLK was wrong.....Goldwater actually enacted civil rights for blacks in this country and voted for civil rights when lbj was voting against them......

Which 'civil rights' was Goldwater voting for- that LBJ voted against?

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- which LBJ pushed through.

Johnson was a solid vote for the Southern Bloc.....

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

For two decades in Congress he was a reliable member of the Southern bloc, helping to stonewall civil rights legislation.

From your own article:
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero

Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “****** bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

The Civil Rights Act made it possible for Johnson to smash Jim Crow. The Voting Rights Act made the U.S. government accountable to its black citizens and a true democracy for the first time. Johnson lifted racist immigration restrictions designed to preserve a white majority – and by extension white supremacy. He forced FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, then more concerned with “communists” and civil rights activists, to turn his attention to crushing the Ku Klux Klan.

He blocked civil rights legislation until it was poltically unviable...

Again- quoting your own citation:

rom your own article- the article you cited to support your claims- here is the headline:
Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero

Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “****** bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

The Civil Rights Act made it possible for Johnson to smash Jim Crow. The Voting Rights Act made the U.S. government accountable to its black citizens and a true democracy for the first time. Johnson lifted racist immigration restrictions designed to preserve a white majority – and by extension white supremacy. He forced FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, then more concerned with “communists” and civil rights activists, to turn his attention to crushing the Ku Klux Klan.

Goldwater never achieved a tenth as much as LBJ achieved in Civil Rights.

Don't ask me- ask Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Muhammed]

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Those that support the party of slavery are stupid, precisely because they cannot admit that they were wrong.

The 'party of slavery' is now the party of African Americans.

While the party of the Lincoln is now the party opposed to Civil Rights.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

 

[Syriusly]

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

Yes- the bitter old white Republicans who think only people of color are racists.

And that Goldwater was a Civil Rights hero for opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Martin Luther King Jr. was a fool and a sell out.

Nope...the white racists are in the democrat party too......racists need control of the government to enact their laws, that is why all the racists have flocked to the democrat party, the party that wants government to have unlimited power......

Those that support the party of slavery are stupid, precisely because they cannot admit that they were wrong.

The 'party of slavery' is now the party of African Americans.

While the party of the Lincoln is now the party opposed to Civil Rights.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that conclusion?

Sure.

90-95% of African American voters vote Democrat.
The Republican Party nominated for President men who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Goldwater
Reagan
Bush

 

[Pogo]

So you guys keep lying about it...we have the internet now to show that you are lying....

Indeed we do. That's why I keep inviting you --- or anyone anywhere --- to use that internet to supply us all with some kind of link to any documentation of the Klan being started, staffed or run by a political party.

I'm still pitching a shutout.

No....we said it was started by democrats......

Yes- you keep saying that. And still haven't proven that.

Meanwhile neither the GOP or the Democrats today are the party of the KKK.

Despite the false narrative of bitter old white Republicans who think all people of color are racists.

the democrat party is the home of modern racist groups....la raza and black lies matter...as well as others...the klan is no longer useful to the democrats so they cut them loose, and now try to tie them to the anti klan party.

The Klan deleted itself by its own inevitable karma --- with help from both Republicans and Democrats. Highlights:

1870s -- U.S. Grant and the "Ku Klux Klan Act" extinguish the original Klan. Remains dead until 1915.

1921 -- Jack Walton, newly elected Oklahoma Governor, tries to drive Klan out of the state after Tulsa Race Riots. Klan works to get Walton removed from office.

1922-28 -- Percival Baxter and Frederick Hale lead the anti-klan branch of the Maine Republican Party against the pro-Klan branch of Owen Brewster and Mark Alton Barwise, with limited success as Klan Republicans win local offices all over the state and Brewster wins Governor's chair. Although Hale eventually unseats Brewster, the latter goes on to Congress.

1924 - Oscar Underwood, leading national voice denouncing the Klan, declares "the organization is a national menace....It is either the Ku Klux Klan or the United States of America. Both cannot survive. Between the two, I choose my country" and runs for President. Al Smith joins Underwood calling for a party platform denouncing Klan by name. After Klan sympathizers deadlock the convention it settles on Gov. John Davis of West Virginia --- who then denounces the Klan anyway.

1925 -- D.C. Stephenson, political boss of Indiana, brutally rapes and effectively murders a young woman. When his declaration "I AM the law in Indiana" fails to keep him out of prison he outs all the state politicians indebted to him for support, and takes them down with him. Klan's reputation is heavily damaged, membership plummets.

1944 -- The IRS of the FDR Administration present the Klan with a tax lien of two-thirds of a million dollars, forcing it to officially dissolve. Two years later it would present the same bill to Samuel Green when he tried to organize the "Association of Georgia Klans" claiming it to be a different group. (oh by the way Green also had no known political affiliation -- imagine that)

1946-47 -- Georgia Gov. Ellis Arnall with his Assistant AG Daniel Duke and federal assistance from Pres. Harry Truman, initiate legal action to revoke the state charter granted to the Klan in 1916. Klan surrenders charter voluntarily. Arnall and Duke also prosecute the Columbians, a far-right fascist local group opposing and persecuting "blacks, Jews, liberals and the print media".

1946-52 --- Stetson Kennedy infiltrates the Klan, feeds into to the FBI, and then writes an exposé book about its workings. Also writes exposé of Jim Crow. In 1946 Kennedy works with writers of the wildly popular "Superman" radio show in a series called "the Clan of the Fiery Cross" ridiculing the Klan to American youth. Klan membership, after receiving a boost from immigration and refugee xenophobia out of World War Two, again plummets.

1965 -- LBJ becomes first POTUS since Grant to prosecute the Klan after KKK slaying of a civil rights activist. Has to shake J. Edgar Hoover out of his hypnotic "communists under every bush" trance.