Why is it that "whites" are the only race to vote in a diverse manner?

[JQPublic1]

Just 10 years ago, Bush did better among white voters (58-41) than Kerry did among Hispanic voters (53-44). Bush did pretty well with Hispanic voters in both of his victories. Since then the GOP has done everything they could to drive Hispanic voters away.

And White women and Asians! AND JEWS!

 

[Redfish]

Minorities are not going to vote for a party overflowing with people who so clearly hate them.

The way I see it is there are factions in both parties that dislike minorities. The Republican Party may have a larger faction that dislikes blacks than the democrats, but I do believe that the majority of the party is not racist. The false perception of the Republican Party, created by democrats, is what I think is the problem. How this is going to change? I'm not sure. The democrats continue to interject race into every discussion and quite frankly it's benefited them tremendusly.

Hey Rocko, I think that you are pretty reasonable. If you look at the people who are posting the majority of threads about "race", what political persuasion do you think they are? If you look at my stats and the threads I respond to about race, just take a look at who started them. In fact this actual thread is a prime example.

Is Alan West a racist? how about Tim Scott? Mia Love? Thomas Sowell? Ben Carson? You dem/libs are full of shit on this race crap. More and more minorities are turning away from the dems as they see them caring more about illegals than americans, using the blacks for votes only and then ignoring them, lying about just about everything.

Sorry, dems, but you no longer own the minority vote. America is waking up. Obama has destroyed your party for the next 50 years or more.

 

[Redfish]

Just 10 years ago, Bush did better among white voters (58-41) than Kerry did among Hispanic voters (53-44). Bush did pretty well with Hispanic voters in both of his victories. Since then the GOP has done everything they could to drive Hispanic voters away.

I know that is what you are told to say (or paid to post) but its a lie. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

americans are not as stupid as you dems think they are.

 

[bodecea]

The way I see it is there are factions in both parties that dislike minorities. The Republican Party may have a larger faction that dislikes blacks than the democrats, but I do believe that the majority of the party is not racist. The false perception of the Republican Party, created by democrats, is what I think is the problem. How this is going to change? I'm not sure. The democrats continue to interject race into every discussion and quite frankly it's benefited them tremendusly.

Hey Rocko, I think that you are pretty reasonable. If you look at the people who are posting the majority of threads about "race", what political persuasion do you think they are? If you look at my stats and the threads I respond to about race, just take a look at who started them. In fact this actual thread is a prime example.

Is Alan West a racist? how about Tim Scott? Mia Love? Thomas Sowell? Ben Carson? You dem/libs are full of shit on this race crap. More and more minorities are turning away from the dems as they see them caring more about illegals than americans, using the blacks for votes only and then ignoring them, lying about just about everything.

Sorry, dems, but you no longer own the minority vote. America is waking up. Obama has destroyed your party for the next 50 years or more.

You should be pointing those names out to the OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know Mia Love, who is a classy lady, and will be elected in the fall.

She would tell Redfish, politely but FIRMLY, "no, more and more minorities ARE NOT leaving the Dems and we must do something about it. Part of that, Redfish, begins with your stupid posting. Don't."

Email her, Redfish, and ask her.

 

[Pogo]

What's bullshit? I am not disputing your history review at all. The fact IS that Reagan was a Democrat until 1962 when he switched parties. He was 50 years old. During those years, the KKK, who then identified with the Southern White Democrats was still lynching Blacks, bombing and raping. Reagan knew that and, yet, his sympathies rested with them. even though he has never been tied to the organization. Further, when he became the Republican president he publicly expressed sentiments in that regard.

"Bullshit" refers to the previous post by AvgGuyIA, claiming that the Klan was started by a political party. That is what's bullshit.

The fact is the KKK didn't dabble in politics until its second incarnation, and when they did (1920s mostly, a couple of Senators/Governors and the Anaheim City Council) they propped up whatever candidate worked in that time and place.

I respectfully disagree. Besides people who work clandestinely and wear hoods could be anybody. just because there was no public political affiliation with the KKK in any if it's 3 manifestations (yes there were three origination periods) doesn't mean there were none.

I count only two incarnations as anything resembling 'organized'; the veteran soldiers in 1865 and Simmons in 1915. I'm aware of the conventional wisdom of a "third" KKK but in fact that refers to a catch-all of individual dipshits and groups of dipshits playing on the history of the previous incarnations, using World War II as a time buffer to delineate them. I can't count that as an organized movement. Just scattered idiots play-acting.

Yeah the individual members could be anybody, and they might individually be registered as Democrat, or Republican, or not registered at all. They could be uninterested in politics altogether -- in other words a random slice of population. That's a very different thing from claiming a political party organized the thing, which is what the first poster held, and which is bullshit. Politics was not the KKK's thrust. Racism was, and that's what they all had in common.

I do believe old Southern Democrats had a hand in originating the 2nd and third manifestations of the KKK... Who else could produce the finances to expand a local southern fledgling hate group into a national entity during the '40s, '50' and mid '60s.

There's still no evidence that any party was involved -- plus it doesn't exactly take a million bucks to organize a few like-minded guys and buy some sheets. And as explained above, the "third KKK" isn't an organization at all, so that takes even less funding.

Two more things: if let's say the Democratic Party was behind the organization (or funding it), then why would they put their resources into getting Republicans elected? That would seem to defeat the whole purpose of running an opposition party. If the party were behind the KKK, then they would be pushing election of their own affiliates because when a party gets its own people elected it has influence on them. The Dems would already be running their own candidates against the Republican KKK governors/Senators. They would have had to in effect run against themselves for the purpose of giving up control to the other party. Doesn't add up.

Not to mention, why would the Republican Party agree to a Democratic sub-group running candidates for them? And this would be in the midwest (Indiana was a big hot spot) and Colorado and California, not the South. That was the Simmons Klan. (3K2)

And thing two: the DP had, because of historical anomalies, a schizoid personality base of extreme right-wing conservatives in the South and moderate liberals everywhere else; two factions philosophically 180° apart. Fat chance of getting a national political party to underwrite something most of them vehemently oppose.

And don't be fooled in the reported major reduction in size during those eras... it was large enough. Reported numbers ain't everything.

I don't know what that means, so ... ?

Thats a rather subjective approach and, to some extent it is viable. Even if the people who started it were Democrats doesn't mean the KKK was sanctioned nationally by most Democrats...just the southern ones! But the truth be told, there were some Republicans involved too!

I'm hip. That's what I'm saying.

More accurately I'm saying the Klan population could be anybody from any party and didn't need to be a member of any party at all. Two independent factors. Now we can assume that those in the South, if they were registered with a party, were predominantly Democrats, because everybody in the South was a Democrat (I use "everybody" colloquially). By that measure we could say most seamstresses, car mechanics and waitresses were Democrats too; it doesn't mean a political party is somehow the originator of dressmaking, auto repair or waiting tables.

The Klan values were on race and, in the second incarnation, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-loose women and public debauchery, pro-Christian values and anti-Communist. Their causes were (pervertedly) social and moral, not political except in the anti-Communism, and that would be a pseudo-political manifestation from the 'red scare' daze.

Unh unh! That was the pretense. They were not only anti-Black or minority, they were anti-Republican too. They lynched White Republicans almost as readily as they lynched and murdered Blacks. Murderers don't have pro-Christian values!

No idea what "unh unh" means -- are you having sex while posting?

I think you're conflating the first Klan with the second here. There were lynchings and murders and general terrorism in resistance to Reconstruction, which would have targeted Republicans and carpetbaggers (and blacks) in the first Klan (3K1), meaning the 1860s-1870s. What I described above is the second Klan (3K2), the Simmons organization, which had some differences: one, it incorporated the burning cross icon for the first time (3K1 didn't have it), which they took from the film "Birth of a Nation", which Griffith took from English literature. Two, it expanded from targeting blacks to also targeting Jews, Catholics, Communists, gays, liberals, and at the same time, as it was presenting itself as a "social" organization, it made itself a kind of vigilante police force who would accost and whip local adulterers, drunks and floozies. So they absolutely DID present their ideals and driving force as hyper-Christianism. Whether you or I agree with them that what they did was "Christian" is irrelevant here; this is how they represented themselves.

Three, the Simmons Klan (3K2) was by far the most organized of the two (or three) versions, which is why it was able to make inroads into other states and other regions. In those regions, to the extent they dabbled in politics (which wasn't all that much), they were getting Republicans elected in Indiana, Colorado and California. So that Klan (3K2) surely would have been lynching, murdering, whipping blacks, Catholics and Jews, but they would not be targeting politically (Republicans). By then the "solid South" was locked-in Democratic territory anyway; there would have been no need. And that solidity stems from the memory that the President who defeated them in the War was the first Republican, combined with the ongoing resistance to Republican Reconstruction. The RP, invented only seven years before the Civil War started, had never gained a foothold in the South and would not until Strom Thurmond broke the mold in 1964 -- 99 years after the war ended (tradition dies hard, especially in the South).

It's worth noting for historical perspective that when Simmons re-organized the Klan (3K2, 1915) he did so in the middle of the absolute nadir of race relations in this country's history. Race riots, random violence, lynchings, murders and such were commonplace, peaking in the Red Summer of 1919 and the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. Fear and loathing was in the air, which goes a way to explain why the KKK was able to make inroads in other regions. With the perception of the black enemy (think Jews in Nazi Germany) the Klan positioned itself, or tried to, as a kind of protector of white Christan morality. The everyday air of fear also helps us understand why many back then were sympathetic to it; that and some such as Byrd drawn by its anti-Communist rhetoric (the first Red Scare was happening concurrently). The history books prefer to dwell on the "Age of Invention" and yammer on and on about Edison and Bell and Tesla and Ford, and they'll make glib references to the "Gay '90s" with ragtime music in the background and a side trip to Europe to see World War I; they completely ignore the everyday violence, paranoia, suspicion and fear that permeated the air. It's always a trap to judge people's actions of 1914 by the standards of 2014; the Klan, political parties, communism, religion, race --- all of these had different definitions in that time and existed in a far different environment.

I'm aware Reagan was a Democrat, but that's got nothing to do with the Klan, nor do I believe he was a racist.

Oh, yes it does! Reagan might not have openly been a Klansman, but his public rhetoric dripped with Klan like propaganda. And, although he was raised in Dixon Ill. and not the South, his evident dislike of Blacks must have been inspired by something of someone. He admitted , as I have shown, an affinity for heroes of the Confederacy. And his code words for Blacks, such as "Welfare Queens and "Bucks" shows where his heart lay! He was a racist.

OK well I'm not aware of that, feel free to link quotes or whatever; it's just not in my experience. I do remember the "welfare queen" term and the fact that he opened his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi talking "states rights". While there's no question those are couched racist terms, I see that as simple pandering, part of the Southern Strategy to opportunistically court the longstanding Democratic-affiliated Southerners, since their party had been officially rejecting their racism since 1948...

But that's political opportunism, not necessarily racism -- in other words it makes Reagan an opportunist but it doesn't necessarily make him a racist. Just as when Fox Noise trumps up fake stories like the "knockout game", Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, Jermiah Wright, ACORN, the "New Black Panthers" etc, (notice what's the same about all those stories) what they're doing is playing to the fears of racists in the audience; it doesn't necessarily mean that Fox Noise itself is racist. Like the Republican Party post-1964, Fox knows it can get more viewers by feeding fears, and if those fears involve race, then that's what's on the menu. That's opportunism, but it doesn't prove racism.

 

[AceRothstein]

Just 10 years ago, Bush did better among white voters (58-41) than Kerry did among Hispanic voters (53-44). Bush did pretty well with Hispanic voters in both of his victories. Since then the GOP has done everything they could to drive Hispanic voters away.

I know that is what you are told to say (or paid to post) but its a lie. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

americans are not as stupid as you dems think they are.

What the **** are you going on about, you dunce?

Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 2004 Presidential Election

I don't think Americans are stupid, I think you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pogo, "I can't count that as an organized movement" is not something you should say to the family survivors of the killer KKK in Mississippi in 1964 through 1970.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, "I can't count that as an organized movement" is not something you should say to the family survivors of the killer KKK in Mississippi in 1964 through 1970.

Whether the group is organized or not has nothing to do with the heinousness of a murder. Why is organization necessary to murder?

3K3 was (is) operating on the basis of past stories. There is no central network, no hierarchy on a national level, that we know of. That's what I'm differentiating from 3K1 and 3K2, which did have that hierarchy. In other words where some historians give us three Ku Klux Klans, I disagree and hold that there were two, plus a postwar resurgence of individual copycats here and there -- but the latter were not organized. When Simmons did his 3K2 in 1915, he officially chartered the group with the state of Georgia. When the civil war vets started 3K1 in 1865, they elected a civil war general (Nathan Bedford Forrest) as a national head. Nothing like that happened with the postwar splinter copycats. They simply sprang up spontaneously.

In other words it's simply not accurate to call some splinter copycat groups the same thing as the organized group. That has nothing to do with how repulsive their acts may be.

 

[Pheonixops]

The way I see it is there are factions in both parties that dislike minorities. The Republican Party may have a larger faction that dislikes blacks than the democrats, but I do believe that the majority of the party is not racist. The false perception of the Republican Party, created by democrats, is what I think is the problem. How this is going to change? I'm not sure. The democrats continue to interject race into every discussion and quite frankly it's benefited them tremendusly.

Hey Rocko, I think that you are pretty reasonable. If you look at the people who are posting the majority of threads about "race", what political persuasion do you think they are? If you look at my stats and the threads I respond to about race, just take a look at who started them. In fact this actual thread is a prime example.

Is Alan West a racist? how about Tim Scott? Mia Love? Thomas Sowell? Ben Carson? You dem/libs are full of shit on this race crap. More and more minorities are turning away from the dems as they see them caring more about illegals than americans, using the blacks for votes only and then ignoring them, lying about just about everything.

Sorry, dems, but you no longer own the minority vote. America is waking up. Obama has destroyed your party for the next 50 years or more.

Tim Scott doesn't pander to racists and act as their proxy to make inaccurate blanket generalizations about Black people. I may disagree with Tim Scott on some issues, but I think that he's a stand up guy.

No one "owns" votes. What were the "minority vote" results in the last Presidential election? What actual data do you have that shows that the Democrats have lost the "minority vote"? If I was a Democrat campaign manager, I would certainly take some of the posts here from conservative republicans and show those "minorities" what not a few of the aforementioned people really think of them.

 

[AceRothstein]

Hey Rocko, I think that you are pretty reasonable. If you look at the people who are posting the majority of threads about "race", what political persuasion do you think they are? If you look at my stats and the threads I respond to about race, just take a look at who started them. In fact this actual thread is a prime example.

Is Alan West a racist? how about Tim Scott? Mia Love? Thomas Sowell? Ben Carson? You dem/libs are full of shit on this race crap. More and more minorities are turning away from the dems as they see them caring more about illegals than americans, using the blacks for votes only and then ignoring them, lying about just about everything.

Sorry, dems, but you no longer own the minority vote. America is waking up. Obama has destroyed your party for the next 50 years or more.

Tim Scott doesn't pander to racists and act as their proxy to make inaccurate blanket generalizations about Black people. I may disagree with Tim Scott on some issues, but I think that he's a stand up guy.

No one "owns" votes. What were the "minority vote" results in the last Presidential election? What actual data do you have that shows that the Democrats have lost the "minority vote"? If I was a Democrat campaign manager, I would certainly take some of the posts here from conservative republicans and show those "minorities" what not a few of the aforementioned people really think of them.

Redfish doesn't pay attention to data. He lives in fantasyland.

 

[Bush92]

Reagan is DEAD

Ya know, current events & all that jazz

Reagan still lives in the hearts and minds of millions of White males; and.., apparently in the heart and mind of my friend, Pogo! That IS a HUGE surprise.

Current events??? If we are discussing politics, Reagan is still relevant.

Let's prop Reagan's corpse up in the President's desk. He could do just as good as Obama.

 

[Bush92]

The Hispanic vote is split about 70-30, which is somewhat diverse. The Asian vote is about the same. But your point is well taken.

For the last several elections, at least 90 percent of black voters have voted Democrat.

On the other hand, the GOP has not done a good job reaching out to minority voters. There have been cases where local GOP candidates have reached out to minority voters and have received a sizable chunk of their votes. So it can be done.

Key word: LOCAL, not national. Al and Jesse will never let that happen.

 

[JQPublic1]

POGO, I may disagree with some of your well delivered and thought out narrative but I have to admit, it is good. I would love to pursue our discussion under more favorable circumstances but, this thing could turn into a mini-novel. My original post was not an endorsement of what AvgGuyla said pertaining to Democrats starting the KKK. I was really just trying to be facetious and had no idea that my response would be interpreted to mean I agreed with his premise in any way. When you jumped in there I was taken aback and was not prepared to defend something i had really never given much thought to. My quip about Reagan's racism has a historical basis which i had researched years ago. So, by using that sentence to loosely hit back at those who keep saying that the KKK was started by Democrats, I underlined the fact that their guru, RAYGUN, was one too. YOU SAVED THEIR ASSES...but I forgive you! LOL

 

[JQPublic1]

Reagan is DEAD

Ya know, current events & all that jazz

Reagan still lives in the hearts and minds of millions of White males; and.., apparently in the heart and mind of my friend, Pogo! That IS a HUGE surprise.

Current events??? If we are discussing politics, Reagan is still relevant.

Let's prop Reagan's corpse up in the President's desk. He could do just as good as Obama.

No, he could never have got that ACA passed; alive or dead!. Besides Obama has to keep that pen moving... A dead Reagan would only stink up the place even more than he did when he was alive!

 

[Pogo]

POGO, I may disagree with some of your well delivered and thought out narrative but I have to admit, it is good. I would love to pursue our discussion under more favorable circumstances but, this thing could turn into a mini-novel. My original post was not an endorsement of what AvgGuyla said pertaining to Democrats starting the KKK. I was really just trying to be facetious and had no idea that my response would be interpreted to mean I agreed with his premise in any way. When you jumped in there I was taken aback and was not prepared to defend something i had really never given much thought to. My quip about Reagan's racism has a historical basis which i had researched years ago. So, by using that sentence to loosely hit back at those who keep saying that the KKK was started by Democrats, I underlined the fact that their guru, RAYGUN, was one too. YOU SAVED THEIR ASSES...but I forgive you! LOL

No biggie, this is all stuff out of my head from previous research. And no I didn't interpret yours to mean you agreed with IA -- it was his post I took issue with. Raygun's a side issue, not important to the big pic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pogo, "I can't count that as an organized movement" is not something you should say to the family survivors of the killer KKK in Mississippi in 1964 through 1970.

Whether the group is organized or not has nothing to do with the heinousness of a murder. Why is organization necessary to murder?

3K3 was (is) operating on the basis of past stories. There is no central network, no hierarchy on a national level, that we know of. That's what I'm differentiating from 3K1 and 3K2, which did have that hierarchy. In other words where some historians give us three Ku Klux Klans, I disagree and hold that there were two, plus a postwar resurgence of individual copycats here and there -- but the latter were not organized. When Simmons did his 3K2 in 1915, he officially chartered the group with the state of Georgia. When the civil war vets started 3K1 in 1865, they elected a civil war general (Nathan Bedford Forrest) as a national head. Nothing like that happened with the postwar splinter copycats. They simply sprang up spontaneously.

In other words it's simply not accurate to call some splinter copycat groups the same thing as the organized group. That has nothing to do with how repulsive their acts may be.

The Klan existed, whether nationally, regionally, or locally is unimportant. They were not worried about whether they met your business standard. I saw them march when I was a teenager, we knew they had infiltrated law enforcement from west Florida to East Texas.

They beat and tortured and killed people.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Pogo, "I can't count that as an organized movement" is not something you should say to the family survivors of the killer KKK in Mississippi in 1964 through 1970.

Whether the group is organized or not has nothing to do with the heinousness of a murder. Why is organization necessary to murder?

3K3 was (is) operating on the basis of past stories. There is no central network, no hierarchy on a national level, that we know of. That's what I'm differentiating from 3K1 and 3K2, which did have that hierarchy. In other words where some historians give us three Ku Klux Klans, I disagree and hold that there were two, plus a postwar resurgence of individual copycats here and there -- but the latter were not organized. When Simmons did his 3K2 in 1915, he officially chartered the group with the state of Georgia. When the civil war vets started 3K1 in 1865, they elected a civil war general (Nathan Bedford Forrest) as a national head. Nothing like that happened with the postwar splinter copycats. They simply sprang up spontaneously.

In other words it's simply not accurate to call some splinter copycat groups the same thing as the organized group. That has nothing to do with how repulsive their acts may be.

The Klan existed, whether nationally, regionally, or locally is unimportant. They were not worried about whether they met your business standard. I saw them march when I was a teenager, we knew they had infiltrated law enforcement from west Florida to East Texas.

They beat and tortured and killed people.

Captain Obvious strikes again

 

[TooTall]

Try to imagine what other ethnic groups have faced in the United States. Racists fought a "civil" war against the United States in order to keep their slaves, and some of them have still not given up their hatred of everyone else on Earth. Racists were so small-minded that they were willing to kill and die by the hundreds of thousands to keep black people as property. And it took over 100 years from the end of slavery until stupid southern Confederate racists would allow black people to vote or use public drinking fountains.

Perhaps if the stupid southern white trash Confederate racists in the neo-Confederate red states weren't so racist, then perhaps other ethnic groups wouldn't feel the need to "stick to their own kind" so much.

The simple fact is that white people can't play the victim in American history.

White people never had to walk to school through a gauntlet of police dogs, fire hoses, and people who hate you for existing. That wasn't that long ago when you really think about it. It wasn't some ancient bygone era. We had photography.

"Racists fought a "civil" war against the United States in order to keep their slaves, and some of them have still not given up their hatred of everyone else on Earth."

Not a single racist that fought in the civil war is still alive. I abhor slavery, but the average southerner of the time did not own a slave and only fought because they were being invaded.

"stupid southern Confederate racists"

You left out Democrat.

 

[Ripple]

Republicans try to appeal to the assholes who fear the eventual day when whites are not a racial majority in this country but a lot of white people are not ruled by irrational xenophobia as it forms the basis of fascism.

Compared to WHAT? The O.W.S. movement that seeks to destroy from the bottom up and suggest that the rules and the means by which our nation has prospered for centuries is somehow evil and unfair and rejected in total.
This without suggesting a viable alternative other than revolt. What O.W.S. fails to recognize is the silent majority that sits watching without showing up to protest does show up to vote.

Your message is LOUD AND CLEAR. it is petulant, juvenile and sponsored by America's enemies for whom you are but a tool.