• 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

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

Kobie said:
Eisenhower was a WAR HERO. He could have gotten elected anywhere. He was a fine president and a fine man, but let's not pretend that some sea change happened, considering, as you said, civil rights legislation was still a ways off.
Click to expand...
When he ran in 1952 being a War Hero wasn't enough for the deep Southern Democratic states to elect him. It wasn't enough for the deep South to vote for him in the 56 election either except for Louisianna while still taking the peripheral Southern states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida that surrounded them. Even though he didn't carry the deep Southern states, Republican voters were increasing in numbers. Every state that Ike did not carry in the South in 52 and 56 are the very same states whose representation in Congress filibustered the civil rights legislation and hindered it's passage. Even though the Republicans were gaining ground in those states, it wasn't because Ike was a war hero. He was the first president since Reconstruction to propose civil rights legislation.

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.
Eisenhower Presidential Library
 
Last edited:
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

mac said:
Both, yes.
Click to expand...

Doubt it - as you're no longer even addressing what is being posted. You just create run on sentences at will.

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.
Click to expand...

What an irrelevant argument to make. That the overwhelming majority doesn't suit your standards for the voting to be based on geographic lines is your problem. As for the second ridiculous point, it was the Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948. Lol. Where did you think Dixiecrats came from?

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

Again ignoring the northern support of Southern Democrats.
Click to expand...

Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're really trying hard to fight the facts.

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.
Click to expand...

Already addressed, however:

Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, whether you think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the discussion. Ignoring the support of what? Northern Democrats of racist policies? See, there you go with the weird sentences and no facts. The facts don't lie mac, overwhelmingly in 3 different CRA votes, Democrats came out in large droves. 3 times, more than 50% voted in favor of CRAs. 3 times, those votes were divided along geographic lines. 3 times, the Democrats who voted against it were Southerners for the most part. Alabama(D), Arkansas (D), Mississippi(D), Georgia (D), South Carolina(D), Virginia (D), South Carolina (D) - against....... in contrast...Rhode Island (R), NJ (R), NY (R), Vermont (R)... in favor... hmmm odd, those look amazingly familiar... I wonder why? ;)

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

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.
Click to expand...

You're refusing to answer a questions. I wonder why. Once Democrats changed their stance on segregation (and they did), what happened to voters who were pro-segregation? Did they migrate North? Did they stay put for the most part? Did they disappear? C'man mac, I want to hear you bull**** your way out of this. What happened to these people after 1964? What happened to the high schoolers who were pro-segregation? What happened to the 20 year olds who'd be in the 70s by now? Did they simply stop existing? They didn't raise kids or pass down their values? Again, I'm trying to see why you find the statement so flawed when you've literally spent the last 4 pages ducking and dodging questions.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

apdst said:
Mary lost the Picayune. She's screwed! :lamo

You know her comments were maximum idiocy if the Picayune calls her out.

A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
Click to expand...

"Senator Landrieu's comments are remarkably divisive," Jindal tweeted. "She appears to be living in a different century."
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. She should have dressed in similar attire when making her remarks.

b7fc081b0fdcfe05b5551eb3c9379fbc.jpg

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
Doubt it - as you're no longer even addressing what is being posted. You just create run on sentences at will.
Click to expand...

False.

What an irrelevant argument to make. That the overwhelming majority doesn't suit your standards for the voting to be based on geographic lines is your problem. As for the second ridiculous point, it was the Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948. Lol. Where did you think Dixiecrats came from?
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant. The Dixiecrats broke away, not the "non-racist Democrats" and they did so on their principles, as f-d up as they were. The Democrats obviously did not feel such affinity for their anti-racist morals. You made my point here, thank you.

Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're really trying hard to fight the facts.
Click to expand...

Northern support for Southern Democrats throughout the history of the party. There's even a name for it: Doughface.

Already addressed, however:

Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Addressed to my point, again, thank you. The mainstream Democrats didn't break away at any point leading up to this, the Dixiecrats did.

Now, whether you think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's ENTIRELY relevant. Specially in light of your implication that post 1964, all the racists broke away from the Democrats and joined the Republicans. :lamo:

It has nothing to do with the discussion. Ignoring the support of what? Northern Democrats of racist policies? See, there you go with the weird sentences and no facts. The facts don't lie mac, overwhelmingly in 3 different CRA votes, Democrats came out in large droves. 3 times, more than 50% voted in favor of CRAs. 3 times, those votes were divided along geographic lines. 3 times, the Democrats who voted against it were Southerners for the most part. Alabama(D), Arkansas (D), Mississippi(D), Georgia (D), South Carolina(D), Virginia (D), South Carolina (D) - against....... in contrast...Rhode Island (R), NJ (R), NY (R), Vermont (R)... in favor... hmmm odd, those look amazingly familiar... I wonder why? ;)
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the Discussion. Southern dominance in the Democratic party was nothing new in 1964, yet Northern Democrats continued to participate in their party. Why? Because their opposition to racist policies, where it did exist, was not important enough for them to break away from an OBVIOUSLY racist party leadership.

You're refusing to answer a questions. I wonder why. Once Democrats changed their stance on segregation (and they did), what happened to voters who were pro-segregation? Did they migrate North? Did they stay put for the most part? Did they disappear? C'man mac, I want to hear you bull**** your way out of this. What happened to these people after 1964? What happened to the high schoolers who were pro-segregation? What happened to the 20 year olds who'd be in the 70s by now? Did they simply stop existing? They didn't raise kids or pass down their values? Again, I'm trying to see why you find the statement so flawed when you've literally spent the last 4 pages ducking and dodging questions.
Click to expand...

I'm not refusing to answer the questions, I'm pointing out all the OTHER facts that you are ignoring. Like the opposition to the 1957 civil rights act.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good grief, you've gone from a high of Democrats had racist policies! To Democrats were needed for the CRA to pass but they weren't driving the issue! Your entire case that Democrats were a movement racist monsters of the 40s and 50s doesn't fit the facts mac. Face it, you had no evidence to unilaterally declare that Democrats as a party were against civil rights in the 40s and 50s. The voting record wasn't there. The statistics weren't there. The numbers simply did not paint the picture you wanted it to. Now, let's put those numbers on a map and the divide in the Democratic Party is clear. However, that divide separates the South and North of the US. Which again supports the argument that Obama wouldn't be popular in a region that supported racism regardless of political party in power. I'm glad you've come to terms with your ridiculous assertion and have downgraded your academically simplistic assault to the acceptance that Republicans weren't the saviors you're portraying them as and Democrats weren't the slave drivers you wish they were.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

The reason for some Republicans voting against some of the legislation proposed is because what Eisenhower originally supported was watered down by Democrats.

Here's a blast from the past that bears out my point.
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_act/RNC_News_Release.pdf
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
Good grief, you've gone from a high of Democrats had racist policies! To Democrats were needed for the CRA to pass but they weren't driving the issue! Your entire case that Democrats were a movement racist monsters of the 40s and 50s doesn't fit the facts mac. Face it, you had no evidence to unilaterally declare that Democrats as a party were against civil rights in the 40s and 50s. The voting record wasn't there. The statistics weren't there. The numbers simply did not paint the picture you wanted it to. Now, let's put those numbers on a map and the divide in the Democratic Party is clear. However, that divide separates the South and North of the US. Which again supports the argument that Obama wouldn't be popular in a region that supported racism regardless of political party in power. I'm glad you've come to terms with your ridiculous assertion and have downgraded your academically simplistic assault to the acceptance that Republicans weren't the saviors you're portraying them as and Democrats weren't the slave drivers you wish they were.
Click to expand...

They weren't driving the issue. They (as a party) weren't driving it at any point up to an including 1964. That's a fact. There obviously were a few Democrats notable for their pro-civil rights stance, but the party as a whole wasn't pro-civil rights. Without good people like Humphrey, Truman and Kennedy....it's possible they never would have made the switch.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Μολὼν λαβέ;1063932369 said:
My thoughts exactly. She should have dressed in similar attire when making her remarks.

View attachment 67175285

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
Click to expand...



Mornin MA :2wave: Yeah and now all thru the Weekend her own people get to hear it over an over......all due to the repeating 3 Day News Cycle. This definitely will finalize the Repubs gaining this Senate seat.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

mac said:
False.
Click to expand...

Now you're arguing just to argue:

It's entirely relevant. The Dixiecrats broke away, not the "non-racist Democrats" and they did so on their principles, as f-d up as they were. The Democrats obviously did not feel such affinity for their anti-racist morals. You made my point here, thank you.
Click to expand...

You're trying too hard and it's showing. The fact that the Dixiecrats broke away demonstrates that the "Democrats were racist" narrative doesn't match. A party division is proof that the Democrats weren't united in the CRA debate.

Northern support for Southern Democrats throughout the history of the party. There's even a name for it: Doughface.
Click to expand...

Good grief, for the second time - Northern Democrats did not vote with Southern Democrats as far as CRAs were concerned. This is proven in 3 different CRAs. In 3 different cases, you have the party split ~50-~50 in regards to the civil rights act. That completely refutes the claim that Democrats were a homogenous group against the CRAs.

Addressed to my point, again, thank you. The mainstream Democrats didn't break away at any point leading up to this, the Dixiecrats did.

It's ENTIRELY relevant. Specially in light of your implication that post 1964, all the racists broke away from the Democrats and joined the Republicans. :lamo:
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant, because it leads to the same conclusion. At no point were Democrats the homogenous group you and vesper pretend they are. That's why it's irrelevant. If Northern Democrats had broken from Southern Democrats, it would have still demonstrated that Democrats weren't a homogenous group against the CRAs. In both cases, it demonstrates that Democrats were as much in favor as against the CRA and the defining characteristic wasn't party affiliation it was geographic position. You're getting desperate for anything which might help you, but the evidence simply isn't there.

It has everything to do with the Discussion. Southern dominance in the Democratic party was nothing new in 1964, yet Northern Democrats continued to participate in their party. Why? Because their opposition to racist policies, where it did exist, was not important enough for them to break away from an OBVIOUSLY racist party leadership.

I'm not refusing to answer the questions, I'm pointing out all the OTHER facts that you are ignoring. Like the opposition to the 1957 civil rights act.
Click to expand...

Tell us mac, how did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
Now you're arguing just to argue:
Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing because your assertion is rediculous.

You're trying too hard and it's showing. The fact that the Dixiecrats broke away demonstrates that the "Democrats were racist" narrative doesn't match. A party division is proof that the Democrats weren't united in the CRA debate.
Click to expand...

Well, you're not trying at all. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears.

Good grief, for the second time - Northern Democrats did not vote with Southern Democrats as far as CRAs were concerned. This is proven in 3 different CRAs. In 3 different cases, you have the party split ~50-~50 in regards to the civil rights act. That completely refutes the claim that Democrats were a homogenous group against the CRAs.
Click to expand...

Which is a snapshot of history, not indicative of the trend. Again, while both parties supported the final 1964 civil rights act, Democrats did not historically support civil rights acts. Fact. Therefore, the driving force behind the progression towards accepting civil rights for all was not driven by Democrats. Fact.

It's irrelevant, because it leads to the same conclusion. At no point were Democrats the homogenous group you and vesper pretend they are. That's why it's irrelevant. If Northern Democrats had broken from Southern Democrats, it would have still demonstrated that Democrats weren't a homogenous group against the CRAs. In both cases, it demonstrates that Democrats were as much in favor as against the CRA and the defining characteristic wasn't party affiliation it was geographic position. You're getting desperate for anything which might help you, but the evidence simply isn't there.
Click to expand...

But Republicans are? There is very nearly as much racist history in the Northern Democrats history as the southern.

Tell us mac, how did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
Click to expand...

How did Democrats vote in every civil rights act leading up to that point?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

vesper said:
The reason for some Republicans voting against some of the legislation proposed is because what Eisenhower originally supported was watered down by Democrats.

Here's a blast from the past that bears out my point.
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_act/RNC_News_Release.pdf
Click to expand...

I thought this needed fixing:

vesper said:
The reason for all Southern Republicans voting against the CRA'64 is....
Click to expand...

Now read from "From over 80 years...." to "...has to respect." I'll give you a clue, what I've been stating all along is there. 11 states which were against desegregation, 11-13 states where Obama isn't popular. Is this surprising to people? Not really. Republicans in the South voted against the CRA because they were in the South. Admitting that doesn't make you guilty of racism. It doesn't make me guilty of racism to say that some Democrats in the South supported slavery and segregation. Why would it? This is all history. However this feigned outrage that this woman said what is a fact, that Obama is not all that popular in the South because well to some extent the South is racist as **** - is just that. Feigned outrage. You can't have it both ways and say that Democrats were racist, but the Southerners who elected them, many of whom are still alive, aren't racist or don't exist anymore.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
I thought this needed fixing:



Now read from "From over 80 years...." to "...has to respect." I'll give you a clue, what I've been stating all along is there. 11 states which were against desegregation, 11-13 states where Obama isn't popular. Is this surprising to people? Not really. Republicans in the South voted against the CRA because they were in the South. Admitting that doesn't make you guilty of racism. It doesn't make me guilty of racism to say that some Democrats in the South supported slavery and segregation. Why would it? This is all history. However this feigned outrage that this woman said what is a fact, that Obama is not all that popular in the South because well to some extent the South is racist as **** - is just that. Feigned outrage. You can't have it both ways and say that Democrats were racist, but the Southerners who elected them, many of whom are still alive, aren't racist or don't exist anymore.
Click to expand...

Don't ever change the words within my quote again. I believe there are rules against such things. I am talking about the Civil Rights Act under Ike not the civil rights bill of 64. Your little trick shows desperation in justifying your point of view and doesn't address the truth behind what Democrats in the Senate did to the first decent piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

mac said:
No, I'm arguing because your assertion is rediculous.
Click to expand...

And you've yet to disprove it. I wonder how long we'll go before you realize you haven't posted anything other than "I don't like it!" and "It's not fair! You've got facts!"

Well, you're not trying at all. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears.

Which is a snapshot of history, not indicative of the trend. Again, while both parties supported the final 1964 civil rights act, Democrats did not historically support civil rights acts. Fact. Therefore, the driving force behind the progression towards accepting civil rights for all was not driven by Democrats. Fact.
Click to expand...

Good grief, it's like you're not sure what to make up anymore. There were only 6 CRAs, 3 of them - we know for a fact Democrats stood in favor of in the majority where there exists a detailed voting record. What about the other 3? Please show us the voting records?

But Republicans are? There is very nearly as much racist history in the Northern Democrats history as the southern.

How did Democrats vote in every civil rights act leading up to that point?
Click to expand...

This was already posted in the thread. Asking for it again is just proof that you really haven't been keeping up. There are only 6 CRAs. The ones from the 1900s don't have detailed records. What we know for certain is that Democrats were once again in the majority (which implies that they were needed for the CRAs to pass). You continue to ignore questions that don't fit your narrative. It's fun, but you really need to start answering. Now: How did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

vesper said:
Don't ever change the words within my quote again. I believe there are rules against such things. I am talking about the Civil Rights Act under Ike not the civil rights bill of 64. Your little trick shows desperation in justifying your point of view and doesn't address the truth behind what Democrats in the Senate did to the first decent piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.
Click to expand...

I edited your post and showed where the edit was. I corrected what it said and made more specific. My little trick show? All of the Republicans in the South voted against the CRA of '64. That's a fact.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
I edited your post and showed where the edit was. I corrected what it said and made more specific. My little trick show? All of the Republicans in the South voted against the CRA of '64. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

And how many Southern Republicans were there in the Senate where the bill was hardest fought by Southern Democrats? Let me help you with that one. There was ONE senator.
##Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
##Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
And you are going to base your entire argument on ONE Southern Republican senator? Got it!
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Hatuey said:
And you've yet to disprove it. I wonder how long we'll go before you realize you haven't posted anything other than "I don't like it!" and "It's not fair! You've got facts!"
Click to expand...

The history of the Democratic party disproves your assertion. I don't have to. :shrug:

Good grief, it's like you're not sure what to make up anymore. There were only 6 CRAs, 3 of them - we know for a fact Democrats stood in favor of in the majority where there exists a detailed voting record. What about the other 3? Please show us the voting records?
Click to expand...

Well, in 1866 (the first civil rights act) The Republicans had 75% of the Senate and 69% of the house and they enacted it over a Democratic presidents Veto.
The 1870 enforcement act was due to a 83% Republican Senate and 70% Republican house. Signed into law by Grant (R) no veto.
The 1871 KKK act, same number, signed into law by a Republican.
The 1875 Civil rights act, again Republican majorities...signed into law by a republican.

All of these introduced and sponsored by republicans. Want me to go on with the rest of them?

This was already posted in the thread. Asking for it again is just proof that you really haven't been keeping up. There are only 6 CRAs. The ones from the 1900s don't have detailed records. What we know for certain is that Democrats were once again in the majority (which implies that they were needed for the CRAs to pass). You continue to ignore questions that don't fit your narrative. It's fun, but you really need to start answering. Now: How did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
Click to expand...

There are more than 6 civil rights related acts they aren't all labeled "Civil Rights Act".
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

apdst said:
Liberals are bigots. They hate Southerners. They have to have a, "boogie man". Hitler had to have a boogie man, too.
Click to expand...

I mainly hate bigots from Bagdad, LA., but there is so many to choose from...
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

bubbabgone said:
Mary had the vapors.
Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:wow: The best way to win votes is to insult the voters? Interesting concept - we'll certainly be watching to see how well that works! :mrgreen:
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Texmex said:
I mainly hate bigots from Bagdad, LA., but there is so many to choose from...
Click to expand...

Anyone who disagrees with y'all is automatically labeled a bigot/racist. It all the Libbos have. I feel sorry for y'all sometimes.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

polgara said:
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

:wow: The best way to win votes is to insult the voters? Interesting concept - we'll certainly be watching to see how well that works! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Geezuz. She keeps talking like that she may obviate the need for a runoff with Cassidy.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Lets see...

Women dont get respect in the south...said woman that has been elected several times by state constituents who worked with numerous other elected women from the south including their woman governor.

Southerners...well...they dont like black people and thats why Obama has had a hard time with them, says the woman who is on record as trying to distance herself from the many Obama policies she has stated she disagrees with.

Why is anyone even seriously considering her words as credible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom