evenflow1969
Gold Member
The funny thing is that you do not beleive in your party enough to be true about what it represents. You may want to explore that some.
ANARCHY IN PORTLAND: City Allows Antifa to Direct Traffic, Pound on Cars, Harass Elderly Motorists
- Thread starter Doc7505
- Start date
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
Yes....they went from racism against blacks to taking in racists of all colors.... racism requires government power....that is why racists of all colors flock to the democrat party, the one party that wants more and more government power and who offers the benefit of enacting race hate against your enemies if you help them get power....
Party???
The party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship????
These Democrats?
See if there are any mistakes here...
1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school childrenâŚ.until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne
2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.
3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.
4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress
5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in TehranâŚ.to the tune of $100 billion to the AyatollahsâŚ.and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.
6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.
7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.
8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..
9. The Democrats got us into the Civil WarâŚJefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWIâŚ.FDR, WWIIâŚâŚTruman, Korean WarâŚ.VietNam, JFK and LBJâŚ..yet they want to weaken our military.
10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, âŚâŚand this is their model for the nation.
11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi PartyâŚ.another âfeatherâ in the partyâs cap?
No??
None???
Are you one of 'em????
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
No.....the racists stayed in the democrat party....the democrat party today is still the home of racists....it just takes in racists of all colors now, not just white racists...who have moved maintained leadership positions in the party...
blackquillandink.com - This website is for sale! - blackquillandink Resources and Information.
Nixonâs Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink
Ken Raymond
Jun 2011
Richard Nixonâs âSouthern Strategyâ, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960â˛sâis a lie.
And itâs probably the biggest lie thatâs been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer thatâs emerges is the Southern Strategy.
Iâve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesnât make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.
For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, Iâll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and itâs been that way ever since.
And that doesnât make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.
The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan thatâs now infamously called the Southern Strategy.
The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.
And hereâs what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.
First, letâs look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.
Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene âBullâ Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.
Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.
Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.
In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, âThe deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.â
The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined âNixon Sped Integration, Wallace saysâ Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in âthe destruction of public school system.â Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states âlock, stock, and barrel.â
This story, as well as Nixonâs memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldnât hear it.
Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixonâs plan.
Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,114
- 1,410
- Banned
- #127
Loved this.
SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,825
- 365
Well I did duck when I was shot at in Panama. And I ducked again in Iraq. But I returned fire on the hostile. Of course I was a Paratrooper, so cowards didnât usually jump out of airplanes.
well named
poorly undertitled
- Oct 2, 2018
- 432
- 84
- 80
So, just to be clear, I cited an academic article published in a flagship economics journal which uses a variety of well-respected empirical data sources to investigate the transition of southern voters out of the Democratic party. You obviously didn't bother to even click the link. Instead, you cited the defunct website of some random guy you found on the internet who isn't even addressing the correct topic, which is not about Nixon, nor even about the "southern strategy" at all.
Here's what the authors of the article I cited say (emphases mine):
As illustrated in Figure 1, at mid-century white Southerners (defined throughout as residents of the 11 states of the former Confederacy) were 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats than were other whites. This advantage has since flipped in sign, with the most dramatic losses occurring during the 1960s. Despite the massive, concurrent enfranchisement of Southern blacks, who overwhelmingly favored the Democrats from 1964 onward, the resulting shifts in aggregate Southern political outcomes have been stark: to take but one example, in 1960, all US senators from the South were Democrats, whereas today all but 4 (of 22) are Republican.
As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats âlostâ white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the partyâs advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.
On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern âdealignmentâ from the Democratic Party.
That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey ques-tions on racial attitudes, from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s, have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey (GSS), another commonly used dataset on Americansâ political and social views, begins in 1972.
In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents âBetween now and ... [election]... there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?â Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having âracially conservative views.â
Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously âlost the Southâ with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations, as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.
Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic Party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958â1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.
That's a long quotation, but the point is the authors are connecting the southern realignment with Democratic support for civil rights in the 60s, rather than anything having to do with Nixon.As with the contemporary debate over the underlying causes of the recent rise of anti-establishment political movements, no clear consensus has emerged as to why the Democrats âlostâ white Southerners, despite 50 years of scholarship. On one side are researchers who conclude that the partyâs advocacy of 1960s Civil Rights legislation was the prime cause. From the Civil War until the middle of the twentieth century, the Democratic Party was based in the South and associated with white supremacy. But as early as the 1940s, the growing Northern wing of the party began to take positions in favor of racial equality. Eventually, Democratic presidents would introduce and sign the sweeping Civil Rights (1964) and Voting Rights (1965) Acts: outlawing, respectively, de jure segregation in public accommodations and racial barriers to voting, both of which, by the 1960s, existed only in the South.
On the other side is a younger, quantitative scholarship, which emphasizes factors other than Civil Rights. These scholars most often argue that economic development in the South made the redistributive policies of the Democrats increasingly unattractive. From 1940 to 1980, per capita income in the South rose from 60 to 89 percent of the US average, which in principle should predict a movement away from the more redistributive party. Beyond economic catch-up, these scholars have argued that demographic change and the polarization of the parties on other domestic issues led to white Southern âdealignmentâ from the Democratic Party.
That scholars have failed to converge toward consensus on this central question of American political economy may seem surprising, but data limitations have severely hampered research on this question. Until recently, consistently worded survey ques-tions on racial attitudes, from both before and after the major Civil Rights victories of the 1960s, have not been widely available. For example, the standard dataset on political preferences in the US, the American National Election Survey (ANES), does not include a consistently repeated question on racial views until the 1970s, well after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (CRA and VRA). Similarly, the General Social Survey (GSS), another commonly used dataset on Americansâ political and social views, begins in 1972.
In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s. Beginning in 1958, Gallup asks respondents âBetween now and ... [election]... there will be much discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates. If your party nominated a well-qualified man for president, would you vote for him if he happened to be a Negro?â Fortunately for our purposes, the wording has remained consistent and the question has been asked repeatedly since that date. We refer to those who say they would not vote for such a candidate as having âracially conservative views.â
Having identified our measure of racial attitudes, we then define the pre- and post-periods by determining the moment at which the Democratic Party is first seen as actively pursuing a more liberal Civil Rights agenda than the Republican Party. Conventional wisdom holds that Democratic President Johnson famously âlost the Southâ with his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, analyzing contemporaneous media and survey data, we identify instead the Spring of 1963, when Democratic President John F. Kennedy first proposed legislation barring discrimination in public accommodations, as the critical moment when Civil Rights is, for the first time, an issue of great salience to the majority of Americans and an issue clearly associated with the Democratic Party.
Our main analysis takes the form of a triple-difference: how much of the pre- versus post-period decrease in Democratic Party identification among Southern versus other whites is explained by the differential decline among those Southerners with conservative racial attitudes? Democratic identification among white Southerners relative to other whites falls 17 percentage points over our preferred sample period of 1958â1980. This decline is entirely explained by the 19 percentage point decline among racially conservative Southern whites. These results are robust to controlling flexibly for the many socioeconomic status measures included in the Gallup data and is highly evident in event-time graphical analysis as well.
To be perfectly honest, I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are arguing in good faith, but I find it really difficult to believe that anyone actually believes that the Democratic party in 2018 represents the interests of white nationalists, despite the fact that literally all white nationalist groups oppose the Democratic party and support far right-wing candidates. It seems more likely to be some kind of trolling. In any case, the history is pretty interesting, and it's a well written article that's worth a read, for anyone actually interested.
Joann Stubbs
VIP Member
- Sep 4, 2018
- 196
- 34
- 68
I just know you would do it. You did it before.....lol Fam jk Bro
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Patching pot holes by slamming the faces of Jews (white people) into them?
You ******* Nazis are playing a deadly game.
Never again Nazi.
The State Department regularly lists areas that are dangerous or at least, risky to Americans when they travel abroad. The State Department needs to include Portland in their listing, citing the reasons. Perhaps it's time to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, send in federal troops and drag away the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police, with additional orders to use whatever force is necessary to reign in the leftist-loonies.
gallantwarrior
Gold Member
I wonder whether he (?) would bake a cake for a gay wedding?
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,780
- 2,250
That sounds so very Trumpian.
And the leftist loonies are so very much the mob rule and intimidation mentality.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
Sorry.....a left wing trio of professors just demonstrated that papers like this are crap....
The democrat leadership only supported civil rights because they knew they needed the black vote....and a paper by left wing academics carries little weight in reality or facts.......
Sorry, not buying it......
In this paper, we employ a little used data source that allows us to analyze political identification and racial attitudes back to the 1950s.
And they weave their myths....
BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 105,192
- 38,780
- 2,250
Not true, but Alex Jones will be proud of you for spouting that.
Under actual Communist rule, someone like him would be hauled away to a gulag, never to be seen again.I wonder whether he (?) would bake a cake for a gay wedding?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
Considering that the Republicans were the party of Civil Rights, and remained so, this paper falls apart right there.....the democrats jumped on board at the last minute, when all the heavy lifting was done...
And as Dinesh D'souza points out, the majority of blacks jumped onto the democrat party because of FDR, ...
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP
Why did blacks, who were once uniformly Republican, become as they are now almost uniformly Democratic? Why did the South, once the âsolid Southâ of the Democratic Party, become the base of the Republican Party? No understanding of current politics is possible without answering these questions.
Progressives have put forward their answer, which is now conventional wisdom, trumpeted in the media and commonly invoked as if it were too obvious to require any proof. Even some Republicans believe it, as evidenced by RNC chairman Ken Mehlman going before the NAACP in 2005 and apologizing for the racist history of the Republican Party. In 2010, the first black chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, conceded the GOPâs supposed Southern Strategy had âalienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.â
You know youâve got a powerful ideological indictment when even its targets are willing to make a confession. And what is this indictment? Its essence can be expressed in a few key propositions. The parties switched platforms, at least on the race issue. This big switch was brought about in the late 1960s by the GOP, which under the leadership of Richard Nixon employed an infamous âSouthern strategyâ based on an appeal to racism and white supremacy.
The racist wing of the Democratic Partyâthe so-called Dixiecratsâresponded by switching allegiances and becoming Republicans. Meanwhile, the Democrats under Lyndon Johnson pushed through the signature civil rights laws. So the Democrats, once the party of racism, became the party of civil rights, and the GOP, once the party of Lincoln and emancipation, became the new home of bigotry and white supremacy.
There is no limit to the number of articles chanting this progressive tune. âThe Southern Strategy was the original tune that made Donald Trump possible,â Jeet Heer writes in the New Republic. Heer contends that while the GOP has relied for decades on âcoded appeals to racism,â or what Heer terms âwinking racism,â Trump with his overt racism is the partyâs âtrue heir, the beneficiary of the policies the party has pursued for more than half a century.â
-------
Here I give the surprising answer to that question. The data show that blacks did not switch from the Republicans to the Democrats in the 1960s. They did not do it because of civil rights. Rather, a majority of blacks became Democrats in the 1930s. This was at a time when the Democratic Party was manifestly the party of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. FDR, who got less than one-third of the black vote in 1932, got 75 percent of the black vote in 1936.
Why would blacks leave the party of emancipation and resistance to segregation and lynching and join the party of bigotry and white supremacy? The depressing answer is that blacks did it in exchange for the crumbs that they got from FDRâs New Deal. We have seen earlier how FDR designed the New Deal to exclude African-Americans and preserve Jim Crow. How delighted and amused FDR must have been to see blacks coming over to his camp even as his administration worked closely with racist Democrats to screw them over.
It should be noted, in mitigation of this horrible decision on the part of African Americansâand it was a horrible decisionâthat conditions for blacks during the Great Depression were almost inconceivably bad. Historian Ira Katznelson points out that median black family income was around $500 a month, which means most blacks lived at subsistence level without electricity, hot water, refrigeration, adequate plumbing or gas for cooking. âUnder these circumstances,â Katznelson writes, New Deal benefits âlimited though they wereâ and âhowever discriminatoryâ still offered some relief and solace to a âdesperate population.â
----------
The first problem with this Southern Strategy tale is that progressives have never been able to provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch by Richard Nixon at any time in his long career. One might expect that a racist appeal to Deep South racists would actually have to be made and to be understood as such. Yet quite evidently none was.
The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the war in Vietnam and, closely related, the antiwar movement in the United States.
Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-Communist, law-and-order platform. While embracing the welfare stateâNixon was no conservative on domestic issuesâhe also railed against what he termed the âexcesses of bleeding heart liberalism.â Some progressives contend that while not explicitly racist, Nixonâs campaign themes reflected a covert or hidden racism. Nixon was supposedly sending âcodedâ messages to Deep South racists, speaking as if through a political âdog whistle.â
-------
Consider Nixonâs famous law and order platform which is routinely treated as a racist dog whistle. Now a call for law and order is not inherently racist, and this theme from Nixon resonated not merely in the South but throughout the country. It should be noted that Nixonâs law and order argument was directly not merely at black rioters but also at mostly white violent antiwar protesters. Nixon condemned the Black Panthers but also the Weather Underground, led by a man whom Iâve subsequently debated, Bill Ayers, and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. Last time I checked, both of them were white.
What of Nixonâs supporters? Were they stereotypical segregationist bigots? The left-wing historian Kevin Kruse thinks so. Kruse portrays as racist the phenomenon of âwhite flight,â which refers to middle-class whites moving out of the crime-ridden inner cities to move to the suburbs. Kruse terms this the politics of âsuburban secession,â a deliberate invocation of the Confederacy itself, as if whites were âsecedingâ from the cities and establishing their own white nation in the suburbs.
Yet Kruse conveniently omits the equivalent phenomenon of âblack flight,â which refers to middle-class blacks doing the same thing as soon as they acquired the means to move to safer neighborhoods. Witness today the prosperous black suburbs of Washington D.C., heavily populated with both whites and blacks who got out of the city. Does it make any sense to call all these people bigots? No. Wouldnât Kruse himself do the same thing for the safety of his family? Of course he would.
New Topics
-
-
-
Are We On the Verge of a Breakthrough on the SAVE America Act?- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
-
Bessent makes excuses for trump, saying he was glad Mueller is dead- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 23
-
Whoops: Schumer Slips on ICE - Makes Hilarious Mistake While Railing About It
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 5
