Post New

If you can't call out white nationalism/racism because doing so will anger your base,
congratulations, you're on the wrong side.

https://news.yahoo.com/meaning-word-idiot-tommy-tu...

For those playing at home see if you can spot the difference...

PS: Donald Trump was endorsed by former KKK leader David Duke and by the "Crusader" the official newspaper of the KKK.
Joe Biden was not.

PS: Donald Trump was endorsed by former KKK leader David Duke and by the "Crusader" the official newspaper of the KKK.
Joe Biden was not.

Are you implying something negative about Trump's 'very fine people'?

PS: Donald Trump was endorsed by former KKK leader David Duke and by the "Crusader" the official newspaper of the KKK.
Joe Biden was not.

And so? Trump has no control on who endorses him....

BUT....
SNIP
'THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'

'Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.'

SNIP
But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back
into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes ' laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen's right to vote.
And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest'

https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/6bQdKPLD...

That is true, right up to 1964. That's when everything changed. The South was heavily Democrat, but switched to Republican after Johnson passed the CRA. So most of the racists migrated, and continue to this day, to the GOP.

That is not to say that most Republicans are racist. But most of the remaining racists (thankfully fewer over time) are Republicans.

Since 1964 Dems have been the champions of civil rights and equality, even if imperfectly.

To LM: I wish you had looked into your "facts" before posting. If you had, you'd have found such resources as these.

"Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020...

Bloggers stated on October 11, 2017:
"The KKK was formed by the Democratic Party."
POLITIFACT TRUTH-O-METER......False
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/oct/24/...

"How social media spread a historical lie:
A mix of journalistic mistakes and partisan hackery advanced a pernicious lie about Democrats and the Klan."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-histor...


The KKK wasn't the outgrowth of a move by the Democratic party, but by a violent subgroup of Southern Democrats....very separate from, and in fundamental conflict with, Northern Democrats. The 2 groups had fought each other in the Civil War, and the southern group wanted to restore what they had lost. (And they weren't just anti-Black, but anti-Jewish. My mother, who was born in 1917, experienced that first-hand as a child in Newport News, VA.)

"...the Ku Klux Klan was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization.... By 1868, the Klan had evolved into a hooded terrorist organization that its members called "The Invisible Empire of the South." The reorganized Klan's first leader, or "Grand Wizard," was Nathan Bedford Forrest, who had been a Confederate general during the Civil War."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/featur...

And this northern/southern Democratic split formalized, although it ultimately repaired.
"During the Progressive Era, which spanned the turn of the century, the Democrats saw a split between its conservative and more progressive members. As the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, William Jennings Bryan advocated for an expanded role of government in ensuring social justice. Though he lost, Bryan's advocacy of bigger government would influence the Democratic ideology going forward..... Roosevelt's reforms raised hackles across the South, which generally didn't favor the expansion of labor unions or federal power, and many Southern Democrats gradually joined Republicans in opposing further government expansion.

Then in 1948, after President Harry Truman (himself a Southern Democrat) introduced a pro-civil rights platform, a group of Southerners walked out of the party's national convention. These so-called Dixiecrats ran their own candidate for president (Strom Thurmond, governor of South Carolina) on a segregationist States Rights ticket that year; he got more than 1 million votes.

Most Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold, but the incident marked the beginning of a seismic shift in the party's demographics. At the same time, many Black voters who had remained loyal to the Republican Party since the Civil War began voting Democratic during the Depression, and would continue to do so in greater numbers with the dawn of the civil rights movement."
https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-p...

That is true, right up to 1964. That's when everything changed. The South was heavily Democrat, but switched to Republican after Johnson passed the CRA. So most of the racists migrated, and continue to this day, to the GOP.

No, it isn't true. The south evolved, as places do. Saying "All the racists moved to the GOP" is a feel-good story the democrats tell themselves:
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-e...

1976: Jimmy Carter wins the entire south: https://www.270towin.com/1976_Election/
1992: Bill Clinton wins LA, MO, AR, TN, KY, GA and WV: https://www.270towin.com/1992_Election/
1996: Bill Clinton wins LA, MO, AR, TN, FL, KY and WV: https://www.270towin.com/1996_Election/

So were all the racists so mad they decided to wait until the 2000 Presidential election to finally swear off voting democrat?

Or are we maybe willing to entertain that the democrat party is too far left for them to stomach anymore?

I really dislike lazy tropes, and this "all the racists started voting Republican" is one of them. Demonstrably untrue on its face, and further proven false when one looks at who wants racial quotas today.

Dope1: 1976: Jimmy Carter wins the entire south: https://www.270towin.com/1976_Election/
1992: Bill Clinton wins LA, MO, AR, TN, KY, GA and WV: https://www.270towin.com/1992_Election/
1996: Bill Clinton wins LA, MO, AR, TN, FL, KY and WV: https://www.270towin.com/1996_Election/

So were all the racists so mad they decided to wait until the 2000 Presidential election to finally swear off voting democrat?


Jesus.

Carter, the former governor of Georgia and a former Georgia state senator, and about as southern as southern gets, won the southern states in 76. Shocker.

In 80, Reagan won every southern state except Carter's home state, Georgia, and West Virginia.

Or are we skipping Reagan and 1980?

Clinton, the multiple term governor of Arkansas (from 79-81 and 83-92) until he ran for the presidency and another son of the south won a half-dozen southern states while his opponent won (in 92) Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, North and South Carolina, and Virginia (8 deep south states). And in 96 his opponent won Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia (8 deep south states).

Talk about lazy thinking.

Carter, the former governor of Georgia and a former Georgia state senator, and about as southern as southern gets, won the southern states in 76. Shocker.

So you're saying that Good 'Ol Boys voted for other Good 'Ol Boys...but the lazy narrative is that the raaaaacist south went GOP in 1964.

Which is your narrative, not mine. Guess that means they all voted for the racists in those races. Good to know.


And thanks as always for playing.

but the lazy narrative is that the raaaaacist south went GOP in 1964.

That would indeed be a lazy narrative....which is why no one actually argues that.

The actual, nuanced argument is that the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 created a schism in the Democratic party, between liberals that supported the CRA and (mostly) southern conservatives who opposed it. That didn't seriously affect the 1964 elections, which was dominated by the death of Kennedy and the very specific issues raised by Goldwater's candidacy. But it had profound effects in the 1968 elections.

Obviously LBJ was hamstrung by Vietnam, but southern conservative Democrats were so outraged by the CRA that they mostly refused to support Humphrey as his replacement. Instead, many of the formerly Solid South states voted for Wallace - an unabashed segregationist who voiced strong opposition to the CRA, and indeed the very project of racial equality. And Wallace crushed both Humphrey and Nixon in the South:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_p...

That was the beginning of a major realignment between the parties in the region. From the Civil War through the Civil Rights Act, white Southern conservatives overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates. Unsurprising, given the partisan alignment leading up to the Civil War. With the adoption of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, however, white Southern conservatives were outraged at the Democratic party for what they perceived as a betrayal of their preferences.

There's a lot of inertia in politics, of course - which is why this was the beginning of a realignment. Some "Dixiecrat" politicians moved to the conservative GOP almost immediately: Strom Thurmond perhaps most notably, and most explicitly, asserting in 1964 that the Democrats were no longer hospitable to people with his view. But Democrats had overwhelming majorities in most Southern states, and kept them for a while. It took several decades for that to unwind - and it wasn't really until the 1994 midterm elections that Southern conservative whites, who had long voted for Republicans in Presidential elections, really started voting for the GOP up and down the ballot.

Ultimately, though, the demographic of the American electorate that was most resistant to the passage of the Civil Rights Act were white Southern conservatives. That demographic was an integral part of the pre-1964 Democratic party; it is now the core of the modern Republican party.

That is not to say that most Republicans are racist. But most of the remaining racists (thankfully fewer over time) are Republicans.

Since 1964 Dems have been the champions of civil rights and equality, even if imperfectly.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, even if they are wrong.

Snip
'Georgia Democrat Rep. Switches Parties: Democrats 'Crucified Me' and Abuse the Black Community'
Snip
'A Georgia Democrat state representative announced that she is switching parties after her leftist colleagues 'crucified' her when she chose to support school choice, adding that the Democrat Party has 'gotten away with using and abusing
the black community.'

https://www.breitbart.com/

The same article is all over the internet so don't bother to talk down breitbart.

That would indeed be a lazy narrative....which is why no one actually argues that.

Other than the people who insist that everyone in the south votes GOP Because Raaacism, you mean.

The actual, nuanced argument is that the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 created a schism in the Democratic party, between liberals that supported the CRA and (mostly) southern conservatives who opposed it. That didn't seriously affect the 1964 elections, which was dominated by the death of Kennedy and the very specific issues raised by Goldwater's candidacy. But it had profound effects in the 1968 elections.

That's not what was argued. The argument was the racist southern voters all shifted to the GOP in 1964 and stayed there. As you point out, it's far more nuanced than that, and when one looks at, you know, actual voting patterns we see that the south wasn't solidly Republican until more than 3 decades after the CRA passed.

No lefty ever squares the circle with the fact that Eisenhower was the first President to push for broader reform and the CRA passed with more Republicans than democrats, but as I said, it's a lazy trope that's meant to be an argumentative woobie.

Ultimately, though, the demographic of the American electorate that was most resistant to the passage of the Civil Rights Act were white Southern conservatives. That demographic was an integral part of the pre-1964 Democratic party; it is now the core of the modern Republican party.

And here's where the trope comes back in: is today's voter the same as a pro-segregationist from 1959? The answer is 'no', and it's again a very lazy thing to assume that people don't change culturally over time.

LM: I wish you had looked into your "facts" before posting. If you had, you'd have found such resources as these.

Oh yawn

Snip
'The KKK was founded by Democrats, but not the party'

One and the same, just a skew by the dem party.

Snip
'The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe in Pulaski, Tennessee. The group was originally a 'social club' but quickly became a violent white supremacist group.

Its first grand wizard was Nathan Bedford Forrest, an ex-Confederate general and prominent slave trader.

Fact check:Photo shows Biden with Byrd, who once had ties to KKK, but wasn't a grand wizard

Experts agree the KKK attracted many ex-Confederate soldiers and Southerners who opposed Reconstruction, most of whom were Democrats. Forrest even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

'The KKK is almost a paramilitary organization that's trying to benefit one party. It syncs up with the Democratic Party, which really was a racist party openly at the time,' Grinspan said.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020...

I'm not sure who you're speaking with, but ask that person which US President screen a Klan film in the White House. Whoever it is won't like the answer.

That's not what was argued. The argument was the racist southern voters all shifted to the GOP in 1964 and stayed there.

No....the initial argument raised by LurkerMom was to mention that opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was mostly led by Democrats. LM was the one who was making that "very lazy thing to assume that people don't change culturally over time."

No lefty ever squares the circle with the fact that Eisenhower was the first President to push for broader reform and the CRA passed with more Republicans than democrats....

You need to talk with more lefties. Almost every lefty that's interested in Civil Rights is aware of Southern conservative opposition to the bill, the existence of the Solid South, and George Wallace's siphoning off of the Dixiecrats in order to try to preserve segregation. ♫♫"In Birmingham they love the gub'nor...."♫♫

In the 1950's, when Eisenhower pushed for broader reform, the parties were nowhere near as rigidly aligned on the liberal-conservative spectrum on social issues that predominate today. There were lots of liberal Republicans, and lots of conservative Democrats. Opposition to the Civil Rights Act came mostly from conservatives, while support for it came mostly from liberals. And those two ideological groups sorted fairly steadily after the passage of the CRA into GOP and Democrats, respectively. Quickly in the national races and more slowly in the state and local races. The Republican party of 1964 was far more liberal than today's GOP; the Democratic party of 1964 had a very large bloc of conservatives in the South.

If you analyze the Civil Rights Act under the political spectrum that the two parties ended up sorting on, it is fundamentally a liberal piece of legislation. You can see that if you try to identify which modern party's ideology is more supportive of the core concept of the Civil Rights Act - the use of federal power to restrict private parties and local political organizations in order to protect the interests of historically disfavored minorities.

Since 1964 Dems have been the champions of civil rights and equality, even if imperfectly.
************************************************
'A Georgia Democrat state representative announced that she is switching parties after her leftist colleagues 'crucified' her when she chose to support school choice, adding that the Democrat Party has 'gotten away with using and abusing
the black community.'

https://www.breitbart.com/

The same article is all over the internet so don't bother to talk down breitbart.

So the decision of one single individual in a southern state invalidates the dominant pattern of the past 60 years. Yeah sure.

And since when does the promotion of this single Breitbart article on the internet suddenly transform Breitbart into a group concerned with the truth?

Question from Dope for Sheila: 'I'm not sure who you're speaking with, but ask that person which US President screen a Klan film in the White House. Whoever it is won't like the answer.'

I'll save you the trouble Sheila and answer the question for you.

Snip
'On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon. The film presented a distorted portrait of the South after the Civil War, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and denigrating blacks. It falsified the period of Reconstruction by presenting blacks as dominating Southern whites (almost all of whom are noble in the film) and sexually forcing themselves upon white women. The Klan was portrayed as the South's savior from this alleged tyranny. Not only was this portrayal untrue, it was the opposite of what actually happened. During Reconstruction, whites dominated blacks and assaulted black women. The Klan was primarily a white terrorist organization that carried out hundreds of murders.'


https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_even...

No....the initial argument raised by LurkerMom was to mention that opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was mostly led by Democrats. LM was the one who was making that "very lazy thing to assume that people don't change culturally over time."

So let's examine that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_... (Assuming wiki has it right)

Vote totals
Totals are in Yea'Nay format:

The original House version: 290'130 (69'31%)[1]
Cloture in the Senate: 71'29
The Senate version: 73'27[2]
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289'126 (70'30%)[3]

"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
9:50
Public statement by Lyndon B. Johnson of July 2, 1964, about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964"
10:22
audio only
Problems playing these files? See media help.
By party
The original House version:[1]

Democratic Party: 152'96 (61'39%)
Republican Party: 138'34 (80'20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[35]

Democratic Party: 44'23 (66'34%)
Republican Party: 27'6 (82'18%)
The Senate version:[2]

Democratic Party: 46'21 (69'31%)
Republican Party: 27'6 (82'18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[3]

Democratic Party: 153'91 (63'37%)
Republican Party: 136'35 (80'20%)

So the GOP outvoted the dems on the CRA.

You need to talk with more lefties. Almost every lefty that's interested in Civil Rights is aware of Southern conservative opposition to the bill, the existence of the Solid South, and George Wallace's siphoning off of the Dixiecrats in order to try to preserve segregation. ♫♫"In Birmingham they love the gub'nor...."♫♫

You're singing "Sweet Home Alabama", which is much more nuanced a song that something just about raaacism. For example
Big wheels keep on turning
Carry me home to see my kin
Singing songs about the southland
I miss Alabamy once again
And I think it's a sin, yes

Well, I heard Mr. Young sing about her
Well, I heard old Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow

In other words, don't dump on the entire South because of 1 thing. "We thought Neil was shooting all the ducks in order to kill one or two," said Ronnie Van Zant at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Home_Alabama

If you analyze the Civil Rights Act under the political spectrum that the two parties ended up sorting on, it is fundamentally a liberal piece of legislation. You can see that if you try to identify which modern party's ideology is more supportive of the core concept of the Civil Rights Act - the use of federal power to restrict private parties and local political organizations in order to protect the interests of historically disfavored minorities.

You should have capitalized "liberal". It's a piece of legislation that affirms some of America's core principles, which is what the GOP is for.

So the GOP outvoted the dems on the CRA.

There were more Democratic votes for the CRA than Republican votes - in both the House and Senate. But there were also more Democratic votes against the CRA as well. The biggest political faction in favor of the CRA were liberal Democrats, which were numerous than the Republicans; but the biggest faction against the CRA were Southern Democrats.

But none of that is relevant to my point. Southern white conservatives overwhelmingly opposed the CRA (and they were largely Democrats at the time, but now they're overwhelmingly Republican). You raised the argument that demographic groups can culturally change - that just because the modern GOP is the home of Southern white conservatives doesn't mean that those Southern white conservatives necessarily do/would have opposed the CRA. But LM's argument (which you've just repeated) commits the same category error that you think is wrong. Just because the folks who were opposed to the CRA back in the mid-1960's were mostly Democrats can have zero bearing on which party today would be the predominant supporter of the Civil Rights Act - or indeed which party at the time was the driving force behind passage of it. The truth is that both the majority of support for the CRA and the majority of opposition against the CRA were both Democratic - mostly because Democrats had so large a majority of the seats in both chambers that they contained within their caucus nearly all of the political spectrum

I think what also played a big part in coloring people's perceptions is what happened around the Civil Rights Act. The biggest group in favor of the bill was (again) the pro-CRA Democrats. Although the Southern white conservative faction within the Democratic party led the charge against the CRA, the political dynamics painted a very clear picture which party institutionally was supportive of Civil Rights. Immediately after the law was passed, the GOP chose a Presidential nominee who had opposed it (Barry Goldwater). Some very high profile Democrats switched to the GOP because they were so upset with Democratic support for Civil Rights - most notably Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, but several other southern politicians (including our own Florida governor Claude Kirk). You did not see the opposite. You did not see any of the Republican folks who opposed the Civil Rights Act leaving the GOP to join Democrats in protest of the GOP's support of the CRA.

So while you have several anti-CRA politicians (like Helms and Thurmond) looking around and seeing that the GOP was the place for them, you had zero pro-CRA politicians thinking that they no longer had a home in the Democratic party.

<<Ultimately, though, the demographic of the American electorate that was most resistant to the passage of the Civil Rights Act
were white Southern conservatives. That demographic was an integral part of the pre-1964 Democratic party; it is now the core of the modern Republican party.>>

Bingo! Albaby nailed it as usual.

What's truly remarkable is that this needs to be explained to some folks.

And there's this...

Neo-Nazis explain why they support Donald Trump

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/8/...

I shouldn't have to tell you this but...
When your political ideology is in alignment with the KKK and the Nazis, congratulations, you're on the wrong side.
You are a crappy person and your parents failed you.

I shouldn't have to tell you this but...
When your political ideology is in alignment with the KKK and the Nazis, congratulations, you're on the wrong side.
You are a crappy person and your parents failed you.


per your article....

'Although the NSM does not officially endorse Trump, they support many aspects of his platform, including immigration reform and putting 'America first.'

What part of immigration reform and putting 'America first' you do not agree with?

Bingo! Albaby nailed it as usual.

What's truly remarkable is that this needs to be explained to some folks.

To be fair, the nuance cuts both ways.

It's certainly true that the segregati....nah, let's just call them racists, of the mid- to late-1960's that decided to switch parties during the Civil Rights Movement all went in one direction - out of the Democrats and into the GOP. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were perhaps the most notorious - they took a look at where the two parties were going, and decided that the GOP was the right fit for them. There's no doubt that the Democrats were the party of the Civil Rights Act, and that the Southern white conservative faction of the party had lost that internal battle for policy.

Buuuuuuuut - most of the racists stayed right where they were, and the Democrats were willing to let them stay in the party for quite a while. Sure, the ones who lasted the longest were forced to recant a bit, like Robert Byrd. But back in the 1970's, even the biggest racist arseholes were quite welcome to stay in the Democratic tent, and wield an enormous amount of power. Folks like Senators John Stennis and James Eastland and Herman Talmadge were fine and dandy Democrats. Even named an aircraft carrier after Stennis, as staunch and unrepentant a racist as you could want. All those Democrat-dominated state legislatures throughout the South stayed Democratic and wholly resistant to civil rights for the immediate duration, too. You don't get a Democratic Georgia legislature picking a flat-out racist like Lester Maddux to be the Democratic governor without some serious issues.

So while it's defensibly the case that opponents to the Civil Rights Act were more welcome in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party in the immediate aftermath of passage, it's not the case that they were unwelcome in the Democratic party.

That said, though, it's completely anachronistic to apply the political affiliations and divisions of the parties as they were in the 1960's and 1970's to their modern analogs. The Democratic party was much more solicitous of conservatives, and the GOP of liberals, back in those days. Now that the parties have almost completely sorted along conservative and liberal lines, the entirely conservative opponents of the CRA would certainly be shut out of the modern Democratic party.

As LBJ himself said after passage of the CRA, "we just lost the South for a generation". He underestimated. There has been three generations now. It was the heart of Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, Apparently it also played well for Reagan when he launched his campaign in MS, near the site of a notorious civil rights incident.

To this day, the South is mostly lost to Dems unless it's a southerner running. Southern male. Bill won, Hillary lost. But then HRC wasn't really a southerner, even if she was first lady of AR.

I don't know if the rural/urban divide is affecting it that much, but I suspect it is starting to a bit.

As LBJ himself said after passage of the CRA, "we just lost the South for a generation".
----------------------------------------------------

The divide seems rural vs urban to me. And by urban I don't mean large metropolitan, but decent sized cities. A quick online searched showed that 46.75% of registered voters are Dem's, and 23.92% of registered voters are Rep's. That is a pretty big difference. But in my state, my experience has been the majority of rural citizens are Rep's. And my experience has been that there are more Dem's in the medium and smaller cities that I frequent. My experiences are of course anecdotal, but the #'s definitely show substantially more Dem's than Rep's in the USA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+register...

I never for 1 second bought into any of Trump's "rigged election" BS, Trump's been spouting that BS every election he's involved in.

There were more Democratic votes for the CRA than Republican votes - in both the House and Senate.

Erm, there were more democrats in both chambers of Congress. The GOP voted for the CRA in higher percentages.

Immediately after the law was passed, the GOP chose a Presidential nominee who had opposed it (Barry Goldwater).

Oooo, nice try. Goldwater wasn't a racist, but statements like this purport to indicate that he was.
Goldwater also challenged his party's moderate to liberal wing on policy issues. He supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disagreeing with Title II and Title VII.

In other words, it wasn't a perfect bill and he opposed sections of it. Were he some kind of racist he would have opposed the earlier versions.

Say. 1957. Who was President then?

https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-....

In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats.

There's all those civil-rights minded democrats at work right there.

Support for civil rights among many democrats - LBJ chief among them - was due to political expediency, nothing more. That's true today, btw.

'I'll have those <really bad word>s voting democrat for the next 200 years'.

That is true, right up to 1964. That's when everything changed. The South was heavily Democrat, but switched to Republican after Johnson passed the CRA. So most of the racists migrated, and continue to this day, to the GOP.
That is not to say that most Republicans are racist. But most of the remaining racists (thankfully fewer over time) are Republicans.Since 1964 Dems have been the champions of civil rights and equality, even if imperfectly

Do you think there's a social-media active right winger who has not read that explanation numerous times, and ignored or dismissed it numerous times?

Yes, Albaby, it's my understanding that it took decades. It's also one of the favorite things of the racist South and the GOP today to deny it, point out that Lincoln was a Republican and the Democrats are the real racists. I showed my Filipino friends the Lee Atwater and LBJ quotes and talked to them about our racism. They asked.

Yeesh.
Today, racists are overwhelmingly Republican.
The past is the past. It is true that Lincoln was a Republican, Southerners vote for a Southerner, etc. Not relevant.

Democrats do identity politics. If you are a minority, even if self proclaimed, they will fall all over you as long as you are not too successful.

Republicans don't question their supporters. They will pander to the worst racists, religious bigots and NRA for votes and money.

That is the state of the affairs in 2023. It's irrelevant what it was in 1866 or 1966.

Erm, there were more democrats in both chambers of Congress.

As I pointed out in my post. The GOP voted for it in higher percentages, but Democrats voted for it in higher numbers. It's hard to remember, looking back from modern ideological monoliths, that back in the day the political parties contained far more divergent factions than they do know. Democrats were simultaneously the biggest drivers for the CRA and also had a sizable faction against the CRA. Both things were true. A larger percentage of the GOP - to their credit - made the right choice. But the Democrats were the driving force behind the CRA being enacted and contained the biggest obstacle to it being adopted.

Oooo, nice try. Goldwater wasn't a racist, but statements like this purport to indicate that he was.

You're responding to someone else's argument - not mine.

For my point, it doesn't matter whether Goldwater was personally a racist - or whether there were parts of the CRA he would have supported if they were standing alone. Rather, it's that the GOP was willing to choose him as the nominee despite his opposition to the CRA. It's a pretty clear signal about where the two parties were institutionally in response to the passage of the CRA - the GOP was very clear that it would not reject the people who opposed the CRA.

It's worth pointing out for a moment that Goldwater's position was still bad. He was no Bull Connor (or James Eastland, if you prefer), and we might very well decide that he didn't have the individualized animosity towards black people that motivated those avowed racists. But he still decided that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't keep people from having segregated lunch counters or firing people just because they were black. He still decided that because the CRA did to that, it was bad enough that he couldn't support the bill at all. That prohibiting people from refusing to let black folks in their stores, or from refusing to hire them, was so insupportable that it warranted tanking the CRA altogether. Whether you think it's racist, it's still a position that disdains vast swatches of what we consider to be basic human rights. His support for civil rights might have been non-zero - but it was so diminished and crabbed as to be morally reprehensible, even if he wasn't as horrible as the Stennises and Maddoxes of the era.

That's a terrible position. Goldwater was criticized for taking it, and he deserved that criticism. And to his credit, he regretted that position later in his life. He took a terrible stand, which he later recognized - but the GOP made him the nominee anyway. Which tells you something important about where the parties were at that time.

Interesting thread...
The Republican argument in a nutshell: In 1865 the republican party was not made up of homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist clodpolls. True!

The Democrats argument: Unfortunately the year is 2023 and the republican party is currently made up in large part of homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist clodpolls. Also true!

"Beware, your life is not valued":
NAACP travel advisory warns Florida has become "hostile toward African Americans" under the leadership of Gov. Ron DeSantis.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/us/naacp-florida-tr...

Donald Trump and Mike Pence were endorsed by former KKK leader David Duke and by the "Crusader" the official newspaper of the KKK.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not.

Neo-Nazis explain why they support Donald Trump
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/8/...

"Because of Ron DeSantis and his frenzied appeal to extremists, LGBTQ+ people in Florida are finding themselves in a state of emergency
every single day. Since the day he took office, DeSantis has weaponized his position to weave bigotry, hate, and discrimination into public law for his own political gain.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05...

Yeah, when your political ideology is a homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the 1950's and you're voting for the same folks as the KKK and the Nazis, congratulations, you're on the wrong side.

Interesting thread...
The Republican argument in a nutshell: In 1865 the republican party was not made up of homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist clodpolls. True!

The Democrats argument: Unfortunately the year is 2023 and the republican party is currently made up in large part of homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist clodpolls. Also true!

I don't think that fairly characterizes the Republican argument. That doesn't make the Republican argument right - but it should be accurately presented.

The GOP argument in a nutshell is that in 1964 the Republican party was not made up of xenophobic or racist clodpolls. That in fact, the largest contingent of xenophobic and racist clodpolls were in the Democratic party. And that therefore, the successful adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be considered part of the legacy of the GOP and not the Democrats.

All but that last bit is very defensible. During the Civil Rights Movement, the racists and segregationists - at least in political leadership - were mostly Democrats, not Republicans. And they weren't a tiny portion of the Democrats, either - frickin' 40% of Democratic Senators signed the Southern Manifesto, arguing that public spaces should continue to be segregated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto

But that last bit also ignores that the majority of the Democratic party, and especially the leadership (both JFK and Johnson, but also party leaders in both chambers) in pushing the CRA forward. Because the Democrats led the way, they also ended up taking the political hit as angry white Southern conservatives (most visibly in folks like George Wallace, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond) pushed away from the party. As much as GOP support for the actual CRA should be to its credit, its rapid shift to welcoming these reactionary conservatives who opposed the Civil Rights Movement - and elevating Goldwater (one of the few GOP opponents to the CRA) - was to its shame. Though as I mentioned upthread, the Democrats didn't cover themselves in glory, either, allowing the rabid segregationists to remain welcome members of their coalition for many years after the CRA as well.

But both parties continued to "sort" on political ideology very quickly after that. Democrats became more the party of liberals who believed in robust federal power, and Republicans became more the party of conservatives who were suspicious of federal power. Within a decade or so after its passage, the CRA (a massive liberal expansion of federal oversight into vast areas of formerly state-regulated public and private activity) fit far more neatly into the political ideology of the Democratic party than the GOP. Put simply, the GOP started purging their liberals and the Democrats started purging their conservatives - and the CRA had been supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. While support for the CRA was previously across both parties and divided by political ideology, the parties shortly thereafter realigned along the party ideology that the CRA was split over. And the GOP took the conservative side, which was the side that opposed the CRA. The Democrats took the liberal side....but tried very hard to hold onto its former conservative white Southern base.

It's really complicated history, and neither political party looked like or acted like their modern versions.

Question from Dope for Sheila: 'I'm not sure who you're speaking with, but ask that person which US President screen a Klan film in the White House. Whoever it is won't like the answer.'

I'll save you the trouble Sheila and answer the question for you.

Snip
'On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon. The film presented a distorted portrait of the South after the Civil War, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and denigrating blacks.


So is this screening that Woodrow Wilson attended back in 1915.....108 years ago..... supposed to provide the horrifying and undeniable proof that Democrats are actually pro-KKK? Pro-racism? If either of you had done a little more research (or had a better knowledge of history), you'd know that Wilson was progressive in many ways, and a noted supporter of the Jewish community, but very anti-Black. And that jarring aspect finally caused Princeton University to decide to remove Wilson's name from their School of Public and International Affairs and from a residential college.

It's an unfortunate commentary on Woodrow Wilson, not on Democrats.

but very anti-Black. And that jarring aspect finally caused Princeton University to decide to remove Wilson's name from their School of Public and International Affairs and from a residential college.

It's an unfortunate commentary on Woodrow Wilson, not on Democrats

Woodrow Wilson was a democrat and as you said anti-black.
Woodrow Wilson was an anti-black democrat belonging to the
democratic party.
It still remains an unfortunate stain on Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party.

Almost every lefty that's interested in Civil Rights is aware of Southern conservative opposition to the bill, the existence of the Solid South, and George Wallace's siphoning off of the Dixiecrats in order to try to preserve segregation. ♫♫"In Birmingham they love the gub'nor...."♫♫

A friend of mine interviewed Wallace. Wallace said the Fed looked at the Mental Asylums which were occupied by mostly whites. "They're telling me I got to have more crazy n!**ers!"

BUT....SNIP...'THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'

Some right wing extremists blatantly lie about it, while others are simply ignorant. Simply put, when it comes to matters of race, the R and D parties 'switched ideologies.'

<"July 16 marks the 160th anniversary of the most destructive riot in U.S. history. On July 13, 1863, certain Democrats in New York City rose up against the Lincoln administration. Four days later, at least 119 people were dead, another 2,000 wounded. Rioters destroyed between $1 and $5 million in property including about fifty buildings, two churches, and an asylum for orphaned Black children. In today's dollars, that would be between $20 million and about $96 million in damage.

While the Republican and Democratic parties swapped ideologies almost exactly 100 years after the New York City draft riots, the questions of state and federal power, race, and political narratives, and how those things came together in the United States are still with us."

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-1...

n today's dollars, that would be between $20 million and about $96 million in damage.

--------------------

Phfffft. The Antifa & BLM summer of love riots say "Hold my Beer"

It is interesting to me how the parties have sorted. As albaby pointed out, there used to be conservative Dems and liberal Reps. Both parties were a mix. The CRA of 1964 changed that. Not overnight, but pretty quickly. By 1968, Nixon's Southern Strategy was able to succeed. That's only four years. Today the parties are polarized. Not much mixing. Which is probably to the detriment of the parties (no dissenting voices, or at least very few...DINOs and RINOs, etc).

And this also is to the detriment of the voter because I believe the vast majority of voters fall somewhere in the middle. But the extreme factions of each party have enough sway to get polarizing figures through the primaries, and then in the general election you have to choose between a communist bleeding heart or a fascist racist (note: exaggeration for effect). How many times have we heard people say they don't like either candidate? If it were legal, I think there should be an extra box on the ballot "none of the above". If "none of the above" wins, then none of the candidates on the ballot can run again, and they have to select new candidates.

But back to the point, the Rep party of today is not the party of Lincoln, and the Dem party of today isn't the party of Strom Thurman. They've both changed, and neither offers much diversity of thought today.

But back to the point, the Rep party of today is not the party of Lincoln, and the Dem party of today isn't the party of Strom Thurman. They've both changed, and neither offers much diversity of thought today.

What's interesting is how much the core values of the democrat party have changed over the years:

https://www.racket.news/p/where-have-all-the-liber...
(From Matt Taibbi)

There can't possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on. Whether it's the FBI forwarding the SBU asking for the removal of Aaron Maté, or the Global Engagement Center recommending action on the Canadian site GlobalResearch.Ca, or the White House demanding the takedown of figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the same types of behavior have now been captured over and over.

In light of this, I have to ask: where are the rest of the 'card-carrying' liberals from the seventies, eighties, and nineties ' people like me, who always reflexively opposed restrictions on speech?

As albaby pointed out, there used to be conservative Dems and liberal Reps. Both parties were a mix. .... Today the parties are polarized. Not much mixing. Which is probably to the detriment of the parties

I'd say not "probably" but emphatically. And not just a detriment to the parties, but because of that.....to the country, and in so many ways. And it only seems to intensify.

to get polarizing figures through the primaries, and then in the general election you have to choose between a communist bleeding heart or a fascist racist (note: exaggeration for effect). How many times have we heard people say they don't like either candidate?

Biden isn't a communist bleeding heart, even for effect, but the other guy is a fascist racist. :) I'm used to not having a candidate that suits me 100%, that isn't a requirement. One of the first things I do before I even look at a candidate is ask myself, "Do we need to go right, or do we need to go left?" And I look again. For much of my adult life we have needed to go left as we have drifted further and further right. So I don't look too hard at a candidate, but we need to go left. The formula used to be to go to the outside till you were nominated, then head for the center. I will be backing Biden, but looking at some of the others for the future.

Dope1: There can't possibly be controversy at this point as to whether or not this censorship program is going on.

There can't? Really?

Well, lessee...

For clear evidence of censorship by the FBI, Taibbi provides these email exchanges:


Hi Elvis- The following three accounts are not only believed to be associated with foreign influence actors, but also potentially used to display information that violates Twitter's terms of service.

@thePOTUSBox
@to_trump_2019
@Deepnotion2

When available can you provide these accounts to Twitter for further review/final disposition? In addition, if Twitter can notify us of any action taken as a result of the referral, that would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Monte


Hi Stacia,
Our FITF-Global Unit saw these accounts and wanted to bring them to your attention. Please take whatever actions, if any, you deem appropriate. Thanks.

Regards,
Elvis


Umm. What am I missing?

The FBI contacts Twitter, says it believes these accounts are foreign influence actors that possibly violate Twitter's TOS. And that the FBI wanted to bring them to Twitter's attention. And tells Twitter to take whatever actions, if any, it feels appropriate, including none.

Wow, the obvious censorship program is, well, not so obvious, not demanding, and not a much of a program.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.