• 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!

My age is

I am between


  • Total voters
    92
Right, but history doesn't support the idea that the Republican Party is better for minorities than the Democratic Party - like I said, MANY racist Democrats left the party and went to the Republican Party during the civil rights movement - that's not an accident. Furthermore, the current Republican Party has a penchant for pulling the "race card card" which systematically ignores the experiences many blacks have with racism in this country by reducing them to mere attempts at "pulling the race card".

Strom Thurmond and . . . who?

He was the only segregationist Dem who switched parties.
 
Alright, where is the GOP wrong on race? What is their racist history?

PS - Can we agree dems actually do have a racist history?

Why do we keep talking about parties, Dan? I don't know why you keep on focusing the discussion on political parties when I've already told you I don't care about the parties. I frankly don't give a flying frack about the two parties' history, as long as the Dems generally support the things I do TODAY, and the GOP doesn't.

But, just to humor you, yes, I acknowledge Dems have a racist history(Woodrow Wilson, Gov. George Wallace, Robert Byrd, host of other examples) but historically there was a long period where Dems weren't even united.

As for the GOP? They're hardly any less guilty. A simple google search reveals dozens of hits on the subject.

Let me google that for you
 
Last edited:
Why do we keep talking about parties, Dan? I don't know why you keep on focusing the discussion on political parties when I've already told you I don't care about the parties. I frankly don't give a flying frack about the two parties' history, as long as the Dems generally support the things I do TODAY, and the GOP doesn't.

But, just to humor you, yes, I acknowledge Dems have a racist history(Woodrow Wilson, Gov. George Wallace, Robert Byrd, host of other examples) but historically there was a long period where Dems weren't even united.

As for the GOP? They're hardly any less guilty. A simple google search reveals dozens of hits on the subject.

Let me google that for you

Cute trick. (You young people with your hot links and hippity hop songs)

But what do you have to say about it?
 
When I am in doubt I like to read this from George Washington's farewell address;
George Washington:
Warns against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

George Washington's Farewell Address
 
Alright, where is the GOP wrong on race? What is their racist history?

PS - Can we agree dems actually do have a racist history?

Various Republicans and Liberia colonization?
 
Cute trick. (You young people with your hot links and hippity hop songs)

But what do you have to say about it?

A fringe wing of today's republican party is borderline racist (i'm talking about Rush Limbaugh and his fans). In the end? I told you I really, really don't care about parties. Hell, Fred Phelps is a Democrat and is loathed by pretty much EVERYONE. The racism or non-racism on the part of t Dems and Repubs even half a century means little or nothing to me. I don't make excuses for anyone, dem or rep, who was clearly racist. I do commend the GOP of the latter-1800s to mid-1900s for their crusade against slavery and for civil rights.
 
Last edited:
Strom Thurmond and . . . who?

He was the only segregationist Dem who switched parties.
It's interesting to me that you keep mentioning individuals without taking on all of the facts I've posted about the realignment of the party. Do you have anything that contradicts the fact that the parties realigned during the civil rights movement or are you going to post more quotes again?

To answer your question, when I said, "many Democrats", I was referring to the constituency of the party, not the politicians and I still haven't seen you dispute this fact.

Here's a good summary:
The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[37] Meanwhile, the Republicans, led again by Nixon, were beginning to implement their Southern strategy, which aimed to resist federal encroachment on the states, while appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South.

The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 presidential election when the electoral votes of every former Confederate state except Texas went to either Republican Richard Nixon or independent Wallace. Humphrey's electoral votes came mainly from the Northern states, marking a dramatic reversal from the 1948 election 20 years earlier, when the losing Republican electoral votes were concentrated in the same states. '

History of the Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It's interesting to me that you keep mentioning individuals without taking on all of the facts I've posted about the realignment of the party. Do you have anything that contradicts the fact that the parties realigned during the civil rights movement or are you going to post more quotes again?

To answer your question, when I said, "many Democrats", I was referring to the constituency of the party, not the politicians and I still haven't seen you dispute this fact.

Here's a good summary:

No quotes. I just think dems have sold blacks a load.
 
No quotes. I just think dems have sold blacks a load.
There are two implications in the statement that you have yet to prove: blacks can't think for themselves and the Republican Party better handles "black" issues, historically and especially currently.
 
I'm 33 years old. 34 in January.
 
Looks like Woody was the guy in '12. And yes, I admit, I did not look back far enough into his background, but it's not like the north was much different from the south in their support of him.
That is what I meant when I said that it is difficult to call Woodrow Wilson a northerner. He spent far too much time in the South, especially during his most formative years, that helped influence his views on race relations. Wilson is a rather complex figure given all the areas he lived, and thus I find it hard to call him a southerner or a northerner.

Also I hesitate to use the Election of 1912 as proof that Woodrow Wilson was popular around the country. Though he was popular in the North, with Theodore Roosevelt running as the nominee of the Progressive party, it distorts how popular he actually was. As you mentioned in other posts Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote and Wilson was able to win states that he probably could have not otherwise. For example, in 1912 Wisconsin was solidly Republican and yet Wilson was able to win its electoral votes.

A better barometer of his support in the North is the Election of 1916. In this election Charles Evans Hughes won every Civil War Union state, except Ohio, New Hampshire, and Kansas. President Wilson swept the Confederate states.

About that quote from Lyndon Johnson, I would say that he was still from the South; think of the saying "you can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger." During his time as a Senator he indeed oppose civil rights legislation, but then saw the errors of his ways once he became President. If he did indeed continue to harbor racist views during his time as President, do you not think it is strange that he was willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party in an entire region for a demographic that he hated?
 
Back
Top Bottom