4 ms·

For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act. It's the democrat party that should have to denounce it's history... exce

For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act. It's the democrat party that should have to denounce it's history... except they let people like Ralph Northam continue to govern despite being photographed in a KKK hood. And before you start say "Oh the great switch" the part that's never explained by that bs theory is how one day people who had been fighting for civil right woke up and decided to undo everything they had fought for for the last 100 years. You're being taught to hate people that aren't hateful because then it makes it easier to justify the means of seizing power.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act. Civil Rights Acts, many of them, starting in the 19th century; sure, and all that was great. But after that the Republican Party decided to seize on the rift created in the Democratic Party when LBJ also backed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was essential to it being passed into law, because Republicans didn't have a veto-proof majority backing it) to subsequently, starting particularly in the 1968 Presidential election and continuing thereafter, to target the white racists (particularly concentrated in the South) that were disenchanted with the Democratic Party on that issue, in order to make sure that that split wasn't temporary as it was when the Dixiecrats revolted over Truman's integration of the military. And to do that, they started pandering, and have ever since, to the racism of the disaffected group they were courting.
GavinMcG 6y ago
It's precisely because there was 100 years in between that no Reconstruction Republican woke up and voted for Goldwater. You think things can't change over that time frame you haven't been paying attention to the last fifty years, or even twenty.
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws thinking they were going to making things better? Honest question, are you high or just incredibly naive? Secondly, in 1860s republicans freed the slaves and in 1960s they passed civil rights despite democrats voting against it. Thats 100 years of progress so what are you talking about? What did the democrats do other than burn crosses? Edit: I love downvotes without a rebuttal because I know Ive won.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    The idea of "winning" a conversation is screwed up from the get-go. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. The House and Senate were both Democratically controlled. Saying that Republicans passed civil rights because there were 18 Southern Bloc Democrats who fought it in the Senate is just lying about the facts.
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      Based on the percentages it's blatantly obvious which party was more in favor of civil rights for minorities, Republicans. So why would the Racist democrats, the ones that voted no, want to join the party that was much more unanimous than the party in which they currently reside? What you are saying is like Nancy Pelosi becoming a republican because Trump became a democrat. It's absurd. You've been taught a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
      - GavinMcG 6y ago
        Okay... why did a Republican, nominee of the party "more in favor of civil rights for minorities," vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? And why did Nixon, a Republican, follow his lead in the following election, emphasizing law and order, an end to protests, and a war on drugs? Why did Strom Thurmond, a Democrat, join the Republican party? You can't have it both ways!
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws No, the people who still supported the KKK and the ideology behind Jim Crow laws switched major parties, if they were associated with a major party, from the Democrats to the Republicans between the late mid-1960s and the mid-1990s, because of disaffection with the Democrats (initially particularly President Johnson) backing civil rights, but also because the Republicans started actively campaigning to their racist interests to leverage their disaffection with the Democrats. In some cases, the people switching parties were literally the same people who had bolted temporarily from the Democratic Party in the 1940s over Truman's integration policies, but who had come back because they had no other major party to go to, and their own separate party had failed. (Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat Presidential candidate in 1948, is a notable, highly-visible example.) And as this process continued it was self-reinforcing, because the more White supremacists left the Democratic Party for the Republicans, the stronger the Democratic support for the interests White supremacists opposed could be.
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  MLK was a Republican BTW.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    That's not at all clear, historically speaking. Even if he were, that would make perfect sense as a Southerner. We think of politics these days as relatively nationally uniform, but then-Democrats were the racists that the Southern Strategy sought to woo. https://time.com/5764282/martin-luther-king-jr-politics/ https://time.com/5764282/martin-luther-king-jr-politics/
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > MLK was a Republican BTW. That's quite plausible. I'd expect that most American Southern Blacks (outside the South the parties were quite different and the issue is more complicated) that identified with a major party between the founding of the Republican Party and the Republican Southern Strategy of the late 1960s and beyond, which King was murdered too soon to be influenced by, were Republicans. The parties of today, despite sharing the same names, aren't ideologically the same parties as when King was alive (or, a fortiori, any earlier time), though.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> For godsakes the Republican party freed the slaves and voted for the civil rights act. Civil Rights Acts, many of them, starting in the 19th century; sure, and all that was great. But after that the Republican Party decided to seize on the rift created in the Democratic Party when LBJ also backed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was essential to it being passed into law, because Republicans didn't have a veto-proof majority backing it) to subsequently, starting particularly in the 1968 Presidential election and continuing thereafter, to target the white racists (particularly concentrated in the South) that were disenchanted with the Democratic Party on that issue, in order to make sure that that split wasn't temporary as it was when the Dixiecrats revolted over Truman's integration of the military. And to do that, they started pandering, and have ever since, to the racism of the disaffected group they were courting.

GavinMcG 6y ago

It's precisely because there was 100 years in between that no Reconstruction Republican woke up and voted for Goldwater. You think things can't change over that time frame you haven't been paying attention to the last fifty years, or even twenty.

blackflame7000 6y ago
So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws thinking they were going to making things better? Honest question, are you high or just incredibly naive? Secondly, in 1860s republicans freed the slaves and in 1960s they passed civil rights despite democrats voting against it. Thats 100 years of progress so what are you talking about? What did the democrats do other than burn crosses? Edit: I love downvotes without a rebuttal because I know Ive won.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  The idea of "winning" a conversation is screwed up from the get-go. Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. The House and Senate were both Democratically controlled. Saying that Republicans passed civil rights because there were 18 Southern Bloc Democrats who fought it in the Senate is just lying about the facts.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    Based on the percentages it's blatantly obvious which party was more in favor of civil rights for minorities, Republicans. So why would the Racist democrats, the ones that voted no, want to join the party that was much more unanimous than the party in which they currently reside? What you are saying is like Nancy Pelosi becoming a republican because Trump became a democrat. It's absurd. You've been taught a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      Okay... why did a Republican, nominee of the party "more in favor of civil rights for minorities," vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? And why did Nixon, a Republican, follow his lead in the following election, emphasizing law and order, an end to protests, and a war on drugs? Why did Strom Thurmond, a Democrat, join the Republican party? You can't have it both ways!
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So they started voting for the people responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow laws No, the people who still supported the KKK and the ideology behind Jim Crow laws switched major parties, if they were associated with a major party, from the Democrats to the Republicans between the late mid-1960s and the mid-1990s, because of disaffection with the Democrats (initially particularly President Johnson) backing civil rights, but also because the Republicans started actively campaigning to their racist interests to leverage their disaffection with the Democrats. In some cases, the people switching parties were literally the same people who had bolted temporarily from the Democratic Party in the 1940s over Truman's integration policies, but who had come back because they had no other major party to go to, and their own separate party had failed. (Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrat Presidential candidate in 1948, is a notable, highly-visible example.) And as this process continued it was self-reinforcing, because the more White supremacists left the Democratic Party for the Republicans, the stronger the Democratic support for the interests White supremacists opposed could be.
blackflame7000 6y ago
MLK was a Republican BTW.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  That's not at all clear, historically speaking. Even if he were, that would make perfect sense as a Southerner. We think of politics these days as relatively nationally uniform, but then-Democrats were the racists that the Southern Strategy sought to woo. https://time.com/5764282/martin-luther-king-jr-politics/ https://time.com/5764282/martin-luther-king-jr-politics/
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > MLK was a Republican BTW. That's quite plausible. I'd expect that most American Southern Blacks (outside the South the parties were quite different and the issue is more complicated) that identified with a major party between the founding of the Republican Party and the Republican Southern Strategy of the late 1960s and beyond, which King was murdered too soon to be influenced by, were Republicans. The parties of today, despite sharing the same names, aren't ideologically the same parties as when King was alive (or, a fortiori, any earlier time), though.