• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans[W:466]

Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Took this long? You get personally attacked nearly every day. Ever wonder why?

Because Liberals can't support their own arguments. That's why. It's the Liberal way of doing things. It's nit restricted to me, they treat everyone that way. They can't help themselves.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

What, exactly, does the GOP do for black folks?

I don't think there is any race specific program

nor there should be

law and order is more a GOP agenda item than the Dems-blacks are the biggest victims of crime and murder though
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Yes they do. Nevermind inaccuracy.

There is none:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Or, you can go ahead and find it.

...many states included in the vote for the 1964 civil rights act were not even states during the civil war era.

This is why it is important for you to read links before you go and call them "inaccurate":

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | The Guardian

In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it.

Hey! I went and actually looked at the source:

South Carolina: 5 votes. 5 Nays. All 5 Democrats.
Mississippi: 5 votes. 5 Nays. All 5 Democrats
Alabama: 8 votes. 8 nays. All 8 Democrats.
Florida: 12 votes. 1 yea,[ Democrat. 11 nays, 2 Republican, 9 Democrats.
Georgia: 10 votes. 1 yea, Democrat. 9 nays, Democrats.
Louisiana: 8 votes. 8 nays. All 8 Democrat.
Texas: 22 votes. 4 yea, all Democrat[/B]. 17 nays, 17 Democrats, 1 Republican.
Virginia: 10 votes. All nays, 2 Republicans 8 Democrats.
Arkansas: 4 votes. All nays. All Democrat.
North Carolina: 7 votes. All nays. All Democrat.
Tennessee: 10 votes. 2 yea, Democrats. 8 nay, 3 Republican, 5 Democrat.
Missouri: 10 votes. 6 yea, 5 democrats, 1 Republican. 4 nay, 1 Republican, 3 Democrats.
Kentucky: 5 votes. 5 nays, 3 Democrats, 2 Republicans.

What do you know? 13 Confederate states. 116 votes out of those votes, 14 were in favor of the CRA'64. That's ~12% of the total Southern congressional voting power voting in favor of the CRA'64. Again, how are the numbers wrong? A ~2% different? Lol. Semantics.

Further, There were very few southern Republicans in either house, both of which were controlled by Democrats.

This has already been acknowledged. Try and keep up. What has been pointed out is that Republicans, even as a minority in the South, voted AGAINST the CRA'64. That is a fact.

And there were less southern Republicans that voted against it than there were northern Democrats that voted against it.

Brilliant stroke of thought there! Hey! I got one! If what you're saying is true, then is it not a fact that more Democrats voted in favor of the CRA'64?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Wait... we can't have that though! Shhhhh.

Even further, the Republican party was the main driver behind every civil rights related legislation up to that date.

None of them would have gotten passed without Democrats. Again, do you find this to be a false statement? If so, how?

The last point is...there was a Full Democrat super majority in govt at the time, House, Senate, Presidency....you cannot relegate all Republican opposition to any Democrat measure to simple racism while ignoring simple political opposition for political purposes.

Lmao, yeah, try and come up with something coherent next time.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

What, exactly, does the GOP do for black folks?

Why do you insist that the government needs to do so much for black folks? Is it because you believe black folks are too stupid to take care of themselves?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

What, exactly, does the GOP do for black folks?
That's a racist question right there and you don't even know it. Sad.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Now the insults start. The evolution of the Liberal argument...lol!
:shrug: You've been unable to keep up with a simple conversation. Sorry if I struck a nerve.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

There is none:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Or, you can go ahead and find it.



This is why it is important for you to read links before you go and call them "inaccurate":

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | The Guardian



Hey! I went and actually looked at the source:



What do you know? 13 Confederate states. 116 votes out of those votes, 14 were in favor of the CRA'64. That's ~12% of the total Southern congressional voting power voting in favor of the CRA'64. Again, how are the numbers wrong? A ~2% different? Lol. Semantics.



This has already been acknowledged. Try and keep up. What has been pointed out is that Republicans, even as a minority in the South, voted AGAINST the CRA'64. That is a fact.



Brilliant stroke of thought there! Hey! I got one! If what you're saying is true, then is it not a fact that more Democrats voted in favor of the CRA'64?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Wait... we can't have that though! Shhhhh.



None of them would have gotten passed without Democrats. Again, do you find this to be a false statement? If so, how?



Lmao, yeah, try and come up with something coherent next time.

More Democrats voted in favor (overall) because there were more overall...but that's not your argument. Simply put, more northern Democrats voted against it than southern Republicans did. Simple.

It's quite clear that racism was MORE entrenched in the south than anywhere else, but it's a fallacy to use that as a defense of the Democratic Party. Racism (and racist Democrats) did exist elsewhere throughout the country, and while overall...both Parties supported the civil rights act of 1964, that can't be said of any of the previous attempts at civil rights legislation. The Republicans are clearly the majority factor in every attempt at achieving civil rights legislation from it's very beginning right up to 1964. So, it's a fallacy to claim the party that had historically opposed (including the President) civil rights up to that one vote was the driving factor, or more a factor in support of civil rights is revisionist nonsense.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

That's a racist question right there and you don't even know it. Sad.
How is the question racist? Is asking what the DNC has done to improve the lackluster healthcare afforded to veterans disparaging to veterans? Or is it simply recognizing the fact that certain demographics have differing priorities when voting?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

You made a dubious factual statement. I've posted numerous links that prove your statement is dubious.

The Negro in Illinois: The WPA Papers - Google Books
You've proven nothing. You're simply spamming google results that emphatically prove that racism also existed in the North. Slavery, institutionalized racism under the guise of States rights, voter supression, all of the above persisted for longer periods of time and to a greater degree in the South. Deal with it.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Wow, the National Black Republican Association (I'm sure all three of them have a blast) "debunked" the Southern Strategy.

Landrieu never said we were living in the 1960s; that's yet another lie.

The NBPA has more than three members. They are a national grass roots organization for black Americans.
They do not accept the so called "Southern Strategy" that left folks promote.
And I never stated Landrieu "said" we were living in the 60's. It was a reference in regard to her comments that sounded like we were still living in the 60's.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Sen. "Diapers" Vitter versus Mayor Mitch Landrieu next year for the Louisiana governor. As we saw with the Virginia governor last year. Inside Out--Phil Collins
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

You've proven nothing. You're simply spamming google results that emphatically prove that racism also existed in the North. Slavery, institutionalized racism under the guise of States rights, voter supression, all of the above persisted for longer periods of time and to a greater degree in the South. Deal with it.

Your objective is to propagandize Southern ownership of racism. You people never mention racism that existed outside the former Confederate states. You're trying to cover your ass by saying, "to a greater extent", which, as I've proven is a very debatable claim.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Your objective is to propagandize Southern ownership of racism.

Wrong. As usual.

You people never mention racism that existed outside the former Confederate states. You're trying to cover your ass by saying, "to a greater extent", which, as I've proven is a very debatable claim.
To a greater extent implies that racism existed in other areas bonehead :lol: Comical levels of stupid here.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Wow, the National Black Republican Association (I'm sure all three of them have a blast) "debunked" the Southern Strategy.

Landrieu never said we were living in the 1960s; that's yet another lie.

She's trying to svare black folks to the polls by suggesting that it's still the 1960's.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

More Democrats voted in favor (overall) because there were more overall.

Well, I'm glad you finally got that out of your system. Now, let's move on to the second part:

..but that's not your argument. Simply put, more northern Democrats voted against it than southern Republicans did. Simple.

Huh? Do you understand what is being written or do you just post as you see fit? What was stated is that voting for the CRA'64 wasn't based on party lines, it was based on GEOGRAPHY and TIES TO THE CONFEDERACY. How was this proven? Two facts, 1 - Southern states voted against the CRA'64 - Fact. All 13 former confederate states voted against it. Fact. Do you have ANYTHING which disproves those facts? No? Okay, then this conversation is done.

It's quite clear that racism was MORE entrenched in the south than anywhere else, but it's a fallacy to use that as a defense of the Democratic Party.

Nobody has used it to defend anything. What was stated was that the narrative you're telling is ridiculous, simplistic and far from reality. The facts - pesky things they are - show that the Democratic Party was divided. How can this be proven? Again, facts. The party was undisputably divided by the numbers alone. The majority of Democrats were in favor of the CRA'64. There was a minority that was against it. How was that minority defined? It was defined by the fact that it held office almost without exception in the South and in confederate states (13 of those states provided 116 of the votes).

Now, how do we confirm that it was along geographic lines? Again - facts - we check to see how Republicans voted. Even as a minority, Republicans - the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS - voted against the bill. We have to check a third issue, how did Northern Republicans and Democrats vote? Without much of a difference. They were pretty much unilaterally in favor of it. Again, your narrative? Democrats - bad! Republicans! Good! Breaks down under any sort of scrutiny and there isn't a mangled sentence you make that can change that now.

Racism (and racist Democrats) did exist elsewhere throughout the country, and while overall...both Parties supported the civil rights act of 1964, that can't be said of any of the previous attempts at civil rights legislation. The Republicans are clearly the majority factor in every attempt at achieving civil rights legislation from it's very beginning right up to 1964. So, it's a fallacy to claim the party that had historically opposed (including the President) civil rights up to that one vote was the driving factor, or more a factor in support of civil rights is revisionist nonsense.

Are you, are you reading facts? Yes or no? Okay, here we go again - let's prove you are reading:

1. How did Southern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
2. How did Southern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
3. How did Northern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
4. How did Northern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?

Okay, now that you've answered those questions. Did the Democratic voting base who elected those racist Democrats and Republicans Congressmen/Senators cease to exist after 1964? Where did they go? Did they migrate out of the South? Now remember, the statement was that Obama is unpopular in the South partly because he's black. For that statement to be untrue, there simply can't be a sizeable percentage of the Southern population which was in full support of those racist Democrats and Republicans you enjoy telling and omitting about. We both know they didn't. They stayed put. Some migrated out. Some stayed Democrats, some became Republicans. Do you think 50% of the South moved North or suddenly became embracing of multicultural values? Lol. Get serious mac.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Wrong. As usual.

To a greater extent implies that racism existed in other areas bonehead :lol: Comical levels of stupid here.

Insults...proof that you've accepted defeat.

Thanks for playing. :lamo
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

As long as Blacks and LGBTs don't vote in 2014 as in 2010, this is not racist. It is only racist for DEMs to ask their core constituencies from 2008 and 2012 to vote for Dems now. Not so for the GOPs to ask their baggies and RW militia folks to vote now .
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

More Democrats voted in favor (overall) because there were more overall...but that's not your argument. Simply put, more northern Democrats voted against it than southern Republicans did. Simple.

It's quite clear that racism was MORE entrenched in the south than anywhere else, but it's a fallacy to use that as a defense of the Democratic Party. Racism (and racist Democrats) did exist elsewhere throughout the country, and while overall...both Parties supported the civil rights act of 1964, that can't be said of any of the previous attempts at civil rights legislation. The Republicans are clearly the majority factor in every attempt at achieving civil rights legislation from it's very beginning right up to 1964. So, it's a fallacy to claim the party that had historically opposed (including the President) civil rights up to that one vote was the driving factor, or more a factor in support of civil rights is revisionist nonsense.

Since this got me curious, just for the heck of it I looked up the 1957 and 1960 civil rights bills passed under Eisenhower:
1957 House Democrats 122 AYE Republican 172 AYE
1957 House Democrats 109 Nay Republican 22 Nay
1957 Senate Democrats 29 Aye Republican 43 AYE
1957 Senate Democrats 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay
1960 House Democrat 179 AYE Republican 132 AYE
1960 House Democrat 93 Nay Republican 15 Nay
1960 Senate Democrat 44 AYE Republican 34 AYE
1960 Senate Democrat 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Liberals should be embarressed as hell that the race card is all their party has. "It's because Obama is black", is probably the most idiotic statement in human history.

Liberals, embarrassed? Shirley you jest.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Since this got me curious, just for the heck of it I looked up the 1957 and 1960 civil rights bills passed under Eisenhower:
1957 House Democrats 122 AYE Republican 172 AYE
1957 House Democrats 109 Nay Republican 22 Nay
1957 Senate Democrats 29 Aye Republican 43 AYE
1957 Senate Democrats 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay
1960 House Democrat 179 AYE Republican 132 AYE
1960 House Democrat 93 Nay Republican 15 Nay
1960 Senate Democrat 44 AYE Republican 34 AYE
1960 Senate Democrat 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay

If he adds this part of history to his argument, he has to admit that by 1964, the lack of Republicans in Congress made Democratic support for the CRA'64 essential to its passing. If Democrats become essential in its passing, then how can they be painted as the big bad racists he says they are? Hell, your numbers show that within 3 years, the near the middle split of the Democratic Party had turned to a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the act. So how can mac get away with saying Democrats as a party opposed it? I think you just made his simplistic narrative a lot more complicated.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Huh? Do you understand what is being written or do you just post as you see fit?

Both, yes.

What was stated is that voting for the CRA'64 wasn't based on party lines, it was based on GEOGRAPHY and TIES TO THE CONFEDERACY. How was this proven? Two facts, 1 - Southern states voted against the CRA'64 - Fact. All 13 former confederate states voted against it. Fact. Do you have ANYTHING which disproves those facts? No? Okay, then this conversation is done.

Which would be a reasonable argument if no other Democrats voted against it and they hadn't traditionally opposed civil rights. Further, Northern Democrats didn't find Southern Democrats' opposition to civil rights important enough to break away and form their own party. The argument is bankrupt.

Nobody has used it to defend anything. What was stated was that the narrative you're telling is ridiculous, simplistic and far from reality. The facts - pesky things they are - show that the Democratic Party was divided. How can this be proven? Again, facts. The party was undisputably divided by the numbers alone. The majority of Democrats were in favor of the CRA'64. There was a minority that was against it. How was that minority defined? It was defined by the fact that it held office almost without exception in the South and in confederate states (13 of those states provided 116 of the votes).

The facts are not what you say they are, that simple. This article's assumptions are historically simplistic and lacking in rational analysis.

Now, how do we confirm that it was along geographic lines? Again - facts - we check to see how Republicans voted. Even as a minority, Republicans - the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS - voted against the bill. We have to check a third issue, how did Northern Republicans and Democrats vote? Without much of a difference. They were pretty much unilaterally in favor of it. Again, your narrative? Democrats - bad! Republicans! Good! Breaks down under any sort of scrutiny and there isn't a mangled sentence you make that can change that now.

Again ignoring the northern support of Southern Democrats. The lack of moral courage to force the party away from racist policies or break away and form their own party. Also ignoring the historical support of NORTHERN Democrats of racist policies.

Are you, are you reading facts? Yes or no? Okay, here we go again - let's prove you are reading:

1. How did Southern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
2. How did Southern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
3. How did Northern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
4. How did Northern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?

Yes, all of them. Not cherry picked facts taken out of context.

Okay, now that you've answered those questions. Did the Democratic voting base who elected those racist Democrats and Republicans Congressmen/Senators cease to exist after 1964? Where did they go? Did they migrate out of the South? Now remember, the statement was that Obama is unpopular in the South partly because he's black. For that statement to be untrue, there simply can't be a sizeable percentage of the Southern population which was in full support of those racist Democrats and Republicans you enjoy telling and omitting about. We both know they didn't. They stayed put. Some migrated out. Some stayed Democrats, some became Republicans. Do you think 50% of the South moved North or suddenly became embracing of multicultural values? Lol. Get serious mac.

So there we go with "all the racists moved over to the Republican party". You're ignoring the length of voter progression between parties and assuming any switch in allegiance is solely due to civil rights issues. Both of which are entirely simplistic and irrational, not to mention inaccurate. You're also ignoring the Jeffersonian ideal of "they can't integrate or succeed in white society, so we must help them" that has taken over the Democrat party.

The Republican party overall supported civil rights from inception up to and including 1964. Can you say the same for the Democratic Party?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Whatever the history, it's 2014, and Landrieu's playing the race and gender cards is laughable and pathetic, particularly considering her gender. She has been in office quite some time...and perhaps enough time too.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

If he adds this part of history to his argument, he has to admit that by 1964, the lack of Republicans in Congress made Democratic support for the CRA'64 essential to its passing. If Democrats become essential in its passing, then how can they be painted as the big bad racists he says they are? Hell, your numbers show that within 3 years, the near the middle split of the Democratic Party had turned to a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the act. So how can mac get away with saying Democrats as a party opposed it? I think you just made his simplistic narrative a lot more complicated.

The Democrats were essential due to numbers, plain and simple. For that reason, they had to be sold on it. Regardless, it certainly wasn't Democrats driving the issue. Nor was the main opposition to it Republican.
 
Back
Top Bottom