At CPAC, Extremists On Stage And Off

[Bob Blaylock]

The migrants caravans are indeed refugees fleeing violence and famine in their countries. We have a humanitarian obligation to-at minimum hear there [sic] case.

We have no such obligation. We have no obligation to allow any foreigner to enter our country for any reason. As a nation, we may grant the privilege to foreigners to come here. But as a sovereign nation, we have the absolute right to deny this privilege, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have no such obligation. We have no obligation to allow any foreigner to enter our country for any reason.

And I say we do. So there.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The migrants caravans are indeed refugees fleeing violence and famine in their countries. We have a humanitarian obligation to-at minimum hear there [sic] case.

We have no such obligation. We have no obligation to allow any foreigner to enter our country for any reason. As a nation, we may grant the privilege to foreigners to come here. But as a sovereign nation, we have the absolute right to deny this privilege, for any reason, or even for no reason at all.

You don't know much Blaylock. But rather than admit that you don't know something and do some research to find answeres, you just make shit up and resort to an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy

A history: Asylum in the United States

The modern international legal framework for asylum and the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980 provide protection to persons who fear returning to their home country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.1

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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?

Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party

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?

More bullshit. Of 150 Dixiecrats only two switched to the Republican Party. You lie when you suggest the Democrats own up to their past. They have been working overtime to push the lie that republicans are the racists ever since Lyndon Johnson boasted he will have "******* voting democrat for 200 years."

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It's pretty standard for those on the left wrong to falsely accuse their opposition of those vices of which they, themselves, are most obviously guilty. This thread is a perfect example. It is quite obvious to most sane people that the Democrats always have been, and always will be, the true party of racism, hatred, and bigotry, no matter what lies they promote to try to claim otherwise.

Hell yes. Democrats are racist against white people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of 150 Dixiecrats only two switched to the Republican Party.

Well, it's 3, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Most if not all of them started caucusing with republicans at the national level, while staying with the democrat party in local and state elections. Presumably because the local southern democrats were still racist enough for them.