The Dems' Desperation To Rewrite History

[Rikurzhen]

A typically misleading article that the rubes on the Left eat up.
What does it mean to be "left" or "right" on civil rights issues today? It sure isnt the same thing it meant in 1965. In 1965 those on the "right" presumably were in favor of racial restrictions, in favor of racial quotas. In 2014 those same positions are held by those on the "left".
Racism never left the Democratic Party.

The Northeast has the nation's worst segregation in housing and schooling. Which party is dominant in the Northeast?

 

[Rikurzhen]

A typically misleading article that the rubes on the Left eat up.
What does it mean to be "left" or "right" on civil rights issues today? It sure isnt the same thing it meant in 1965. In 1965 those on the "right" presumably were in favor of racial restrictions, in favor of racial quotas. In 2014 those same positions are held by those on the "left".
Racism never left the Democratic Party.

OMG lol.

Translation: That man's brilliant observations went waaay over my head,.

You're an idiot. What racial restrictions that were supported by Southern segregationists are now supported by liberals?

The Southern segregationalists wanted segregated schools. New York now has almost achieved that goal.

 

[hadit]

The democrats' paternalistic contempt for minorities is not even controversial. What's sad is they continue to get away with it. Joe Biden alone should have sunk that ship.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

 

[Faun]

If you want to know which party is more racist, look no further than the U.S. Congress...

Democrats: 42 blacks
Republicans: 1 black

I see you flunked statistics. You also failed to factor in how frequently black Republican candidates are attacked by the left and called Uncle Tom's among other vile things.

Wait ... what??? You're actually claiming Republicans/Conservatives don't elect black Republicans because the left calls them "Uncle Toms???"

Just how weak-minded are you racist righties?

 

[Rikurzhen]

In 1968 George Wallace won Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.

In 1964, Goldwater won 4 of those 5 states among the 6 he managed to win.

See?

And in 1976 all of those states went Democrat.

See?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The types identifying with Thurmond and Wallace and Connor went to the GOP in the South. Tx history books are noticing the far right attempt to revise history then refutes the nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In 1968 George Wallace won Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.

In 1964, Goldwater won 4 of those 5 states among the 6 he managed to win.

See?

And in 1976 all of those states went Democrat.

See?

Because Carter was a southerner and not seemingly as liberal as he actually was. Since then, the conservative racists have steadily drifted into the southern GOP and the black libs and whites stayed in the Dem.

 

[Stephanie]

Are blacks better off or worse after 6 years of hitching themselves to the Dems?

More than six years they decided to Enslave themselves to the Democrat party and look what they have to show for it. Living in warehousing that are war zones, waiting for the small stipend Democrats gives them every month... no jobs, no hope so now they are being used and encouraging them to rioting and looting over some shooting that happens every single day. they didn't get the traction with Trayvon Martin so they waited (Sharpton, Holder, Obama's etc) like vultures for one they thought they could use, so we now have Brown/Furgerson Mo. To me they just rounded them up and them put back on the plantation, the Democrat party plantation. It's a damn sad thing and then you here people from the party, Democrats has 95% of the black vote as if THEY OWN THEM..It's so sad to see them hook themselves to one party but they have

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 1968 George Wallace won Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.

In 1964, Goldwater won 4 of those 5 states among the 6 he managed to win.

See?

And in 1976 all of those states went Democrat.

See?

Yes, you've cited the historical exception to the rule which is not how you make an argument to disprove the rule.

 

[Faun]

If you want to know which party is more racist, look no further than the U.S. Congress...

Democrats: 42 blacks
Republicans: 1 black

I see you flunked statistics. You also failed to factor in how frequently black Republican candidates are attacked by the left and called Uncle Tom's among other vile things.

Faun flunked. Period. Every post off topic, filled with logical fallacies or misinformation.

Drools the forum jester.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Aren't you a Canadian? If so I can understand why you would be so ignorant of American history and why you lap of liberal propaganda.

Here's what you don't know:

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.​

The Democratic party split. Over time the GOP took over the conservative wing of the Democratic party and it effectively disappeared.

So what? Keep your eyes on the ball, boy.

Dot com claimed the following " All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965"

Simple question, is he right or wrong in making that claim?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too funny by half.

"Too funny by half" is right. All of those people started voting Repub right after the passage of The Voting Rights Act waaay back in 1965.

Strange, but Alabama voted Republican in the Presidential race of 1964. So did South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Want to try to explain that one? Every other state, with the exception of Arizona, voted for the racist Democrat, LBJ.

Correlation is not cause and effect. In 1956, with Alabama firmly in Democrat control, 39% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. In 1960, 42% of Alabama voters voted for the Republican Presidential candidate. Obviously, Alabama contained a whole lot of Republicans prior to the 1965 Civil Rights act.

I could go through the same exercise with the rest of the deep South states, but I doubt it would be a useful exercise in this thread.

This is cause and effect. Remember when LBJ said the Civil Rights Act would cost the Democrats the South for a generation?

That was 50 years ago. Want to add up the net won-loss record for Democrats for southern states in presidential elections since then?

Want to compare that to the prior 50 years?

Democrats were already losing the South before the civil rights act was ever passed. LBJ knew that.

For some strange reason, you lefties cannot seem to get your petty little minds around details that debunk your propaganda. In 1952, 40% of Mississippi voters voted for the Republican presidential candidate. That dropped off to 25% in 1956 and 1960, but jumped to 87% in 1964. The party in power in the South was solid in their power base, but a sizable percentage of the voters were Republican in national elections.

I have already shown you the growth in Republican strength in Alabama prior to the civil rights act, but you just blithly ignore anything that counters your preconceived notions.

Prior to 1964, if one wanted to vote for state and local office holders, in the South, one had to be registered as a Democrat, since most of those races were settled in the Democrat primary. Very few Republicans, or independents running for state or local office. Once the Republican party began fielding viable candidates, voters who were Republican leaning switched their registration. It had nothing to do with racism or segregation. However, the Democrat propaganda machine did a fine job with the big lie.

You are right in one regard. The shift of the conservative South from Democrat to Republican has its roots back to the time of Truman. Truman began push civil rights as a Democratic Party mission, if you will, which was a violation of the north/south liberal/conservative coalition that existed in the Democratic Party.

The segregationist Southern Democratic wing of the party had been appeased for decades in the party. Truman started the end of that.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In 1968 George Wallace won Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana.

In 1964, Goldwater won 4 of those 5 states among the 6 he managed to win.

See?

And in 1976 all of those states went Democrat.

See?

Yes, you've cited the historical exception to the rule which is not how you make an argument to disprove the rule.

Oh, thank you, maybe I should take lessons from your practice of correlation implying causation. That crap would be better? What I've done is falsified your hypothesis. There is no way on God's Green Earth that a voting bloc opposed to Democrats on a matter of deep principle would ever vote so overwhelmingly for a Democrat and yet it happened. This blows your nonsense out of the water.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Racists are conservatives, but conservatives aren't always racists...just usually. lol

Only in your fevered imagination. Here in reality, of course, we see Democrats as the racists:

Miserly Republicans, Unprincipled Democrats


Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?​

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.​

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.​

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.​

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hubert Humphrey's great civil rights speech in 1948 put the southern Dem segregationists on notice that a mighty battle for the party was coming between the good guys and the bad guys.

The bad guys had lost by twenty years later, and thus they began moving into the southern GOP, which has been the stinky part of the party ever since.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If you want to know which party is more racist, look no further than the U.S. Congress...

Democrats: 42 blacks
Republicans: 1 black

And that one black republican there wasn't even elected to his seat.

Hard facts:

Since 1929, there have been a grand total of

Five -- count'em

Five

black republicans elected to Congress.

In that same time frame, 102 Democrats have been elected to power.

Speaks volumes.

It sure does speak volumes. When Democrats dangle race-focused policies and throw out bribes to the electorate, the black electorate will respond by voting for free goodies.

Normal people are appalled by racism and race based policies and so these normal people flock to the Republicans.

 

[Rikurzhen]

But a new book about America's political divisions notes that the 99 percent of all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white.

You know how stupid your argument is? It parallels this argument:

A male burn victim, with severe burns to his face, is never seen dating beautiful women even though he asks beautiful women out on dates all the time.

Conclusion: That man hates beautiful women and we know this because he doesn't ever date beautiful women.​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rik, read this again: "But a new book about America's political divisions notes that the 99 percent of all Republican legislators across the country and in Congress are white."

Either we start reaching out to the minorities, or the Dems will crush us forever, and we should be if the party membership thinks it is destined rule the majority.