Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How is anyone here who understands that the Democrats of today are very different from the party that they were back then ignorant of history. People who keep bleating that the Democrats are the racist party are just plain ignorant.They are currently doing that? Name the Democrat plank on the platform that is for any of those things.Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
BTW: I see that those two black men....two...who stood outside a polling place and left when asked to leave BACK IN 2008 still scare the CRCs.
You're still ignorant of history and reality aren't you? How's that prosecution of Trump you promised months ago coming along?
You literally don’t know what the center is.
The GOP doesn’t have an Omar or Cortez or even just a Pelosi.
Oh really? Please show us how it has been debunked? Can you do anything more that regurgitate that old worn out bovine excrement ?Democrats Are No Longer the Racist PartyLet's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
S
oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 248749
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 248750
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Regressive pervert showing ignorance again. You are aware the whole "the parties switched" lie has been debunked multiple times over the years. Quoting another uninformed leftist doesn't help you. YOUR party will forever carry the mark of racists and bigots. Live with it.
Because they are literally communists.
Democrats have urban slave plantations and you criticize Republicans? LolIt is becoming more and more apparent that the Republican Party is irredeemable. They have lost all sense of decency and compassion and are on the wrong side of every issue. As people should be judged by the company they keep, so should be a political party. The past weekends Conservative Political Action Conference bears that out
At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off | HuffPost
"The annual conference served as yet another reminder of how the conservative movement in America is joined at the hip with the white nationalist movement."
Selected excerpts:
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — In 2004, far-right activist Michelle Malkin published a racist book called “In Defense of Internment.” It argued that the United States was right to forcibly remove 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry from their homes during World War II — 70 percent of whom were American citizens — and place them in internment camps for years, where they often lived behind barbed-wire fences under the watch of armed guards.
Malkin — who, it bears repeating, wrote a book that defended putting an ethnic group in government internment camps — told the crowd that current immigration levels amount to an “invasion” that “endangers our general welfare and the blessings of liberty.”
Among those whom Malkin listed as on the “front lines for liberty” were Gavin McInnes, the racist and anti-Semitic founder of the violent neofascist gang the Proud Boys; Laura Loomer, the anti-Muslim activist and InfoWars conspiracy theorist; and the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant group founded by a eugenicist.
Then there is this guy
Brimelow — a racist who has said “Hispanics do specialize in rape” — runs the hate site VDare.com, named for Virginia Dare, said to be the first white baby born in the so-called New World. He has regularly published the work of anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers, including big-name white supremacists like Richard Spencer. He has also published the writing of Malkin.
As well as:
Malkin gave an interview at CPAC to VDare. The interviewer was Faith Goldy, a white nationalist who has appeared on the podcast of The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that advocates for gassing Jews. Goldy has also recited the “14 words,” a white supremacist mantra.
On Thursday, the young white nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes, who attended the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, lurked outside CPAC with a pack of cronies dressed in suits, most of whom were apparently unable to get inside the conference. The next day, however, Playboy reporter Alex Thomas spotted Fuentes inside the conference, wearing a CPAC badge.
There is much more but you get the idea! This is not traditional conservatism. This is hate and bigotry through and through. And the President of the United States spoke there and basked in the love. Let that sink in.!
How is anyone here who understands that the Democrats of today are very different from the party that they were back then ignorant of history. People who keep bleating that the Democrats are the racist party are just plain ignorant.They are currently doing that? Name the Democrat plank on the platform that is for any of those things.Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
BTW: I see that those two black men....two...who stood outside a polling place and left when asked to leave BACK IN 2008 still scare the CRCs.
You're still ignorant of history and reality aren't you? How's that prosecution of Trump you promised months ago coming along?
The prosecution of T-Rump? Coming along just fine.
Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
No, because this is about the 17,892,233 time these winger talking points have been posted by a member of Cult45. Thanks for being consistent.
Mr.Virtue Beacon.
Oh really? Please show us how it has been debunked? Can you do anything more that regurgitate that old worn out bovine excrement ?Democrats Are No Longer the Racist PartyLet's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
The Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
S
oon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 248748
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 248749
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 248750
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Regressive pervert showing ignorance again. You are aware the whole "the parties switched" lie has been debunked multiple times over the years. Quoting another uninformed leftist doesn't help you. YOUR party will forever carry the mark of racists and bigots. Live with it.
Let's see, Demorats: party of the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, fighting against the civil rights act, resisting giving blacks or women the right to vote, putting Black Panthers at the voting booths to intimidate white voters, need we go on?
No, because this is about the 17,892,233 time these winger talking points have been posted by a member of Cult45. Thanks for being consistent.
Thanks for showing you're an uneducated ignorant hick who likes to ignore the actions of his own party. Or talking points, hey are FACTS. Had you advanced past grade school you'd know that.
More stupidity and you just revealed you educational deficit as well . It's "they're to stupid"Well we republicans don't want minorities uneducated and on welfare for life to get their vote. Oh, and we don't think their to stupid to get an id.Red Herring logical fallacy horseshit! You can't actually address the Republican bigotry so you deflect to Jackson and Sharpton. I'm not taking the bait and allow you to troll my thread, Deal with the issue that I raised or shut the fuck up.Lol see?Which Democrats have been hob knobbing with white Nationalists and neo Nazis? ? Which ones said that Hispanics specialize in rape? Please list them all
White nationalists arent the only racist people in the country.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.
He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist
He is proving his educational deficit himself. LolMore stupidity and you just revealed you educational deficit as well . It's "they're to stupid"Well we republicans don't want minorities uneducated and on welfare for life to get their vote. Oh, and we don't think their to stupid to get an id.Red Herring logical fallacy horseshit! You can't actually address the Republican bigotry so you deflect to Jackson and Sharpton. I'm not taking the bait and allow you to troll my thread, Deal with the issue that I raised or shut the fuck up.Lol see?
White nationalists arent the only racist people in the country.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.
He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist
Heed your own words.
It's "they're too stupid".
Yes white nationalists are bad. They are white supremacists. They are racists
If most conservatives/ Republicans condemn racism, why does Trump still enjoy so much support from them.? They are either in denial of his racism or tacitly condone it.As a conservative, as a Republican, I will admit that white supremacists tend to align with my side. I have no problem, and I am sure that the vast majority of my fellow conservatives/Republicans, have no problem condemning these racists, and saying that they do not speak for my side of the political aisle. They are a fringe that most on my side reject.
It is interesting and telling how you cant address any topic without working "faggots and trannies" into it. The sure sign of a very obsessive problem that you have. The "degenerate fringes " that you identify are figments of your twisted mind.I challenge you to say the same about the degenerate fringes of your side—the faggots, the trannies, and other foul sexual deviants; the abortionists, the illegal aliens and their treasonous supporters, the race-baiters, the violent criminals such as those in the Antifa, Black Lies Matter, and Occupy movements, and so on. Will you condemn and reject the degenerate fringes of your party, as I unreservedly do with those of mine?
Red Herring logical fallacy horseshit! You can't actually address the Republican bigotry so you deflect to Jackson and Sharpton. I'm not taking the bait and allow you to troll my thread, Deal with the issue that I raised or shut the fuck up.Lol see?Which Democrats have been hob knobbing with white Nationalists and neo Nazis? ? Which ones said that Hispanics specialize in rape? Please list them allBoth parties can be pretty racist.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.
White nationalists arent the only racist people in the country.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.
He probably doesn't think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al aren't racist
If most conservatives/ Republicans condemn racism, why does Trump still enjoy so much support from them.? They are either in denial of his racism or tacitly condone it.As a conservative, as a Republican, I will admit that white supremacists tend to align with my side. I have no problem, and I am sure that the vast majority of my fellow conservatives/Republicans, have no problem condemning these racists, and saying that they do not speak for my side of the political aisle. They are a fringe that most on my side reject.
It is interesting and telling how you cant address any topic without working "faggots and trannies" into it. The sure sign of a very obsessive problem that you have. The "degenerate fringes " that you identify are figments of your twisted mind.I challenge you to say the same about the degenerate fringes of your side—the faggots, the trannies, and other foul sexual deviants; the abortionists, the illegal aliens and their treasonous supporters, the race-baiters, the violent criminals such as those in the Antifa, Black Lies Matter, and Occupy movements, and so on. Will you condemn and reject the degenerate fringes of your party, as I unreservedly do with those of mine?
Id say its more accurate to say that there are racist people in both parties, but neither party is racist itself, though the left does race bait a lot, but that isnt exactly racism.Both parties can be pretty racist.
I will be glad when you oblivious goobers realize that.
