• 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!

Democrats Have Always Called Republicans "Racists" and Other Vile Names

You remember that childish schoolyard taunt, "I know you are but what am I!"? That's exactly what you did, and now you want to come off all mature and no-nonsense. There's a couple of categories of reply that'll get you nothing but scorn and that dumb ploy is probably number 1 on the list.
Yeah, that was gamesmanship, about the weakest example you could have chosen, and I hope you realize how it makes you look.

You have a weird perception. Little miss middle finger, in reply to JustHanging had just called Trumps base knuckle-draggers and garbage.

"Nobody wants to admit that they are a knuckle-dragger. It's easier to blame the messenger than to actually admit that they are garbage."

But turning that around towards libs and you think it childish, I agreed her reply was that an worse.
 
The intelligence agencies are like Nazi Germany.
The electoral process is rigged.
The judiciary is corrupt and judges can't make unbiased decisions.
The free press is the enemy of the people.
The White House is a dump.
Oh, and the Electoral College is a disgrace to democracy and a revolution should happen to get rid of it.

And that's just off the top of my head.

No, I asked what "VILE" things Trump has said against America, not the SOP liberal mantra.
 
You have a weird perception. Little miss middle finger, in reply to JustHanging had just called Trumps base knuckle-draggers and garbage.

"Nobody wants to admit that they are a knuckle-dragger. It's easier to blame the messenger than to actually admit that they are garbage."

But turning that around towards libs and you think it childish, I agreed her reply was that an worse.

The difference, Sabre, is she came flat out, face to face and said what she thought. You, on the other hand, employed a childish trick to try to look clever. I know you are but what am I! That's what you said, that's how you refute her and make a point in the discussion. It's a dumb reply and gets you just what it deserves.
 
No, I asked what "VILE" things Trump has said against America, not the SOP liberal mantra.

Trump said them. You don't call them vile things to say about America, that's your opinion.
If I said those things you'd call me anti-American.
 
Video is always easier than a tl;dr word salad.....



Great, one after another of select clipped sound bites with absolutely no context to provide what spurred the comment, worthless on its own. But I suppose it is fair because I had seen numerous similar clipped sound bites of Obama and I thought nothing of them either. Context matters.
 
Because if they were white it wouldn't be a racist statement at all. Thats why. Liberals believe if you take a shot at anyone who isn't white is racist. The fact that these 4 fraud squad idiots have now decided Pelosi was a racist wasn't good enough for you? I can't stand Pelosi but she isn't a racist.

Liberals use the word like their drawing a gun. They determine day to day what is and isn't racist. Want an example?

When David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump didn't disavow Duke fast enough, that makes Trump a racist.

Now Duke has endorsed Democrat candidate Tulsi Gabbard for president and its all quite on the western front? Liberals have a funny way of deciding for everyone what is or isn't racist.

Its why nobody gives any credibility to Liberals calling anyone a racist. Don't you just hate it when karma comes around to take a bite out Liberal asses?

Former KKK Leader David Duke Endorses Tulsi Gabbard 2020 Presidential Campaign, Says She'll Put American Interests Over Israel

I think you've found a fine example of what the left considers as being consistent. ;)

The left are constantly changing the 'rules', such as the cited example, to their benefit. This is their idea of being consistent - well, what do you expect when its all emotion based and driven? :cuckoo:

A great many are quite fed up with it, and have stopped believing anything the left says anymore for this reasons (example the #WalkAway campaign).
 
What I have never understood is how people like yourself can come to consider questioning a persons nation of origin an act of "racism."

If I ask a White person where their antecedents came from prior to arrival in America, and one says "Sweden," while another might say "Italy," how is that "racist?" How if I ask someone who is Asian the same question and they say "China," or "Thailand?"

Trump got wind of the rumors generated by supporters of the Clinton campaign who thought it would be a good way to undermine Obama's otherwise "shoe-in" selection as the next Democratic candidate. Hillary worked to squelch it, but the cat had already been let out of the bag. Birther row began with Hillary Clinton supporters - Telegraph

Moreover, back then there were a couple of "sources" this allegation was based on. Most notorious was Obama's half-brother from Kenya who consistently claimed Obama was born there. Then there were various "birth documents" throwing mud into the mix.Obama's Half-Brother Tweets Image of Debunked Kenya Birth Certificate

Then there were Obama's own youthful writings where he claimed to be Kenyan. Now as far as Obama's youthful writing, I simply took that as any kid's pride in ancestry and not a claim he was actually born in Kenya. I distrusted his half-brother's tale from the start as it seemed there was bad blood between him and Obama's family. As for the documents? I accept they were forgeries. Besides, Obama would have been vetted by the State Dept.

But the point is that at the time there was some muddying of the waters, and Trump spoke up about it. It was a foolish thing to say, but it's not like there wasn't existing controversy at the time.

Meanwhile, Trump DID back down from this claim.

Trump finally admits it: 'President Barack Obama was born in the United States' - CNNPolitics

Still, it is not "racist" to question someone's land of birth, it is a form of nationalism (tribalism). People keep using the term "racism" to describe things that simply are not "racist." It ends up diluting the term and making it harder to accept or put faith in when everything is labeled as "racist."

Yeah, but the left's definition of something or someone which is racists is if they 'like' them or agree with them or not. That's all it takes, it would appear, to be on the receiving end of public vindictive, damaging character assassination and personal destructive accusation, regardless how of baseless in fact they may be.
 
Yeah, we know, facts are Kryptonite to much of the Trump base.

I cited Wikipedia, they give a full explanation of the Southern Strategy, along with numerous reputable citations. Why is it wrong?]

The South had begun swinging Republican in the 50s-- back when the Democrats were still defending segregation.
As we discovered a few weeks ago, Mr. Biden was dealing with those guys when he went first went into the Senate.
The fact remains that as the South became more Republican, it became less racist.
 
I think very few Americans give a **** what Dukes thinks or says. I know I don't. His statement simply means that he does not agree with our policies towards Israel. He isn't alone in that. The ignorance comes from those who think that disapproval of Israeli policies is anti-Semitism. It isn't.

My point is throughout recorded human history, silence in the face of obvious racism or other types of hate towards a specific group has always been tacit approval of resulting atrocities. Speaking out against hatred takes courage. Silence about something you know is wrong is cowardly, which is what most congressional Republicans are currently displaying.

However, if Mr. Duke supported the reelection of Mr. Trump, I suspect we would not be seeking to minimise his racism.
 
Sure it does, Haven't you heard? The fraud squad told us so. You can't reprimand them because they are women of color. Just ask San Fran Nan. You didn't hear, shes now a racist as well.

And this is why Mr. Trump's comments were so stupid. The 'squad' was actually making the argument that critics needed to tread lightly as they were 'people of color.'
Now, That sort of bigotry and racism (which is far more real than what Trump stated) gets buried.
 
I blame her for Franken being forced out. Not just her, but she was probably the loudest, most prominent voice saying "step aside before an ethics hearing." Franken should have served his term, it's over now and that's fine, but she's still there. And I have not forgotten.

Everybody from Chuck Schumer to Kamala Harris was calling for his resignation. Seems rather strange that you would single out a woman of color for this.
 
We know. You call everyone who disagrees with you racist. You even redefine the term to add in whomever you want to call racist.

Sad part is you probably believe that crap.

Perfect example. How is asking a sitting president to verify his US citizenship (which is a qualification of office) racist? That would mean asking a sitting president to provide his tax returns (which isn't required for office) even more racist. Right?

Or do you even care to explain.

Well, one can rest assured that the FEC had already vetted the man and determined him eligible to be elected to the highest office in the land. That should be enough, unless you are seriously banking on the Manchurian Candidate line of thinking. As for Trumps tax returns.....he's the one who said he would provide them, right up until he decided to renege on it and turn tail and run.


Speaking of ignorance, that old Liberal wives tale has been debunked so many times it isn't even worth mentioning. But you feel free to run with it all day. I guess if I were a Democrat I would want to make up a story to hide behind the party of actual racism, slavery, the KKK, Antifa, voting against civil rights, and Jim Crow laws.

Now whos the racist?

Better question is whos the uninformed person talking about **** they don't understand.

You can try to claim that the Southern Strategy is a wives tale, but anyone who can read knows you are full of it. It was an actual thing, and was actually implemented by the Republican Party in the 60's and 70's.

As for what party perpetuated racism.....you win based on party designation. Unfortunately for you, when adults discuss the matter, they discuss it based on political ideology and not party, as those have come to change over the decades. Based on ideology, it was conservatives who did all those things, not inherently Democrats or Republicans. The bad part of that for you is that most of those conservatives became Republicans in the 50's and 60's.
 
It is your opinion the birther movement was racist. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Just because the intended target of something is black, or whatever, doesn't mean it was racism.

So it was just coincidence that the first time a President was asked to provide his birth certificate after being vetted by the FEC was when a black man won the election?

Could be, but if you believe that it was, I got some oceanfront property here in Colorado I would like you to consider purchasing.
 
Before Donald Trump The Left Accused Conservatives of Being "racist," "homophobe," "sexist," "mean-spirited," "insensitive" and much more.

Yes, the GOP sure proved those folks wrong by adopting as its leader a race-baiting Birther who openly tells minorities to "go back where they came from" and leads Klan rallies were he basks in chants where he's urged to "send back" naturalized American members of Congress.

Egg on our faces!
 
As for what party perpetuated racism.....you win based on party designation. Unfortunately for you, when adults discuss the matter, they discuss it based on political ideology and not party, as those have come to change over the decades. Based on ideology, it was conservatives who did all those things, not inherently Democrats or Republicans. The bad part of that for you is that most of those conservatives became Republicans in the 50's and 60's.

Are all the adults here now? Do we have everybodys attention? Even the Adult Liberals (If there are any)

The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy. According to this narrative, advanced by progressive Liberal historians, Nixon orchestrated a party switch on civil rights by converting the racists in the Democratic Party, the infamous Dixiecrats, into Republicans.

So these same Liberals insist that Nixon made a racist “dog whistle” appeal to Deep South voters. Evidently he spoke to them in a kind of code. Really? Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs, have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages, messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the rest of the country?

And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.

Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures, not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists.

When you can name all these Dixiescrats that became republicans, let us all know. Until then this is nothing more than Liberals trying to hide from their history of racism.

Name them, here is your chance to prove the idiocy of the Liberals is true. Name all these racist Dixiecrats that became republicans.
 
The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy.

No, dude, it hinges on you nominated the Birther Trump. The guy who tells minority members of Congress to "go back where you came from" and basks in "send her back" chants at his Klan rallies.

I'll admit, it used to take more connecting of the dots to understand the GOP's cringeworthy views on race. We used to have this concept of a "dog whistle," which is totally obsolete in the Trump era. He just says the racist stuff out loud!

Sorry, GOP, plausible deniability is out the window at this point.
 
Are all the adults here now? Do we have everybodys attention? Even the Adult Liberals (If there are any)

Don't go patting your own back just yet...

The Democratic Party’s claim to be the party of the good guys, while the Republicans are the party of the bad guys, hinges on the tale of Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy. According to this narrative, advanced by progressive Liberal historians, Nixon orchestrated a party switch on civil rights by converting the racists in the Democratic Party, the infamous Dixiecrats, into Republicans.

First swing and miss. You will notice that I never once claimed Democrats were the good guys and that Republicans were the bad guys. Hell, I even told you that based simply on party designation, everything you said was correct. I then pointed out that in the 1860's, Democrats were the conservatives of the time. Hence my statement that conservatives perpetuated all the things you brought up.

So these same Liberals insist that Nixon made a racist “dog whistle” appeal to Deep South voters. Evidently he spoke to them in a kind of code. Really? Is it plausible that Nixon figured out how to communicate with Deep South racists in a secret language? Do Deep South bigots, like dogs, have some kind of heightened awareness of racial messages, messages that are somehow indecipherable to the media and the rest of the country?

No, its perfectly perceptible to the rest of the country, hence peoples ability to call them the dog whistles they are. I would personally call them something other than dog whistle, since it implies that others can't hear them, but that is the commonly used phrase, so I go with it.

And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

The vast majority of them were voted out at the next possible opportunity as well, so theres that.

The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.

The south was a reliably Republican voting bloc long before Reagan, and WAAAAAAAAY before 1994 and the Contract with America, so you're gonna have to bring something better than those as proof of concept.

Yet the myth of Nixon’s Southern Strategy endures, not because it’s true, but because it conveniently serves to exculpate the crimes of the Democratic Party. Somehow the party that promoted slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and racial terrorism gets to wipe its slate clean by pretending that, with Nixon’s connivance, the Republicans stole all their racists

What ideology was it again that promoted slavery and Jim Crow? You guessed it....conservatism. Swing and miss #2.

When you can name all these Dixiescrats that became republicans, let us all know. Until then this is nothing more than Liberals trying to hide from their history of racism.

Name them, here is your chance to prove the idiocy of the Liberals is true. Name all these racist Dixiecrats that became republicans.

Swing and miss #3. I never claimed that there was a party switch among people, per se, so you will have to take that up with someone who has tried to make that point.

Once again....the ideology of the political parties has changed in the last 150 years....almost 180 degrees to be exact about it. Dixies may not have become Republicans overnight, but they damned sure started cursing the Democrat party for, as they saw it, leaving them to become more and more liberal. George Wallace ran as an independant in the first election post CRA, and he took quite a few of the southern states in that election. You think that was by coincidence? Of course it wasn't.....those were still the people who would have been called Dixies that later morphed into Republican strongholds later.
 
Last edited:
I agree AND disagree with the Original Poster here.

I do agree that the word "racism" gets used too often, and conflated with policy difference. Conservatives are accused of being anti-immigrant and xenophobic for being against illegal immigration and advocating for a lower immigration quota.

But it is objective fact that some portions of the conservative/Republican wing of the party are indeed racist and xenophobic, and feels that people of color are not really American. I have seen it and heard it, with my own eyes. Just flip on the Tucker Carlson show and it's there, every night.

As far as homophobia, that is very prevalent within the Republican party. Think about it: The GOP doesn't support government marriage for same-sex couples. They don't support gay adoption. They are against the Equality Act, which would expand Federal protections based on gender and sexual orientation. We have state GOP legislators which support "bathroom laws" and think it is perfect fine for a business to discriminate against somebody for their gender or sexual orientation.

So yes, the GOP does need to get more on board with the 21st century. However, I wouldn't brand every GOP member as a bigot. I believe GOP legislators in the non-South and non-Midwest, are more in tune with our century and more logical in nature.
 
.....those were still the people who would have been called Dixies that later morphed into Republican strongholds later.

Wasn't it you that stated:

You can try to claim that the Southern Strategy is a wives tale, but anyone who can read knows you are full of it. It was an actual thing, and was actually implemented by the Republican Party in the 60's and 70's.

So now that we know there was no mass migration of Dixiecrats to the Republican party in the 60s and 70s, the SS is a myth. It was based on the accusations of all these racist Democrats becoming republicans and you can't find any of those people who migrated over (which the SS was predicated on) because Liberals have been called out on this myth for years now. Hence the wives tale that you so boldly defended.

Now you want to claim its the ideology that changed and not the actual people. You can change what you want to claim over and over but what you can't change is the actual Democrat votes on civil rights, or the history of the Republican party who actually freed the slaves.

The Republican Party emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery into American territories. The early Republican Party consisted of African-Americans, northern white Protestants, businessmen, professionals, factory workers, and farmers.

Over the last 100 years, Republicans have stood up for African Americans while Democrats not only stood on the sidelines, but in fact served as obstructionists to civil liberties.

Democrats voted to keep Africans Americans in slavery, opposing the 13th Amendment which officially freed the slaves. Only four Democrats voted for it.

Republicans also passed the 14th Amendment which granted slaves U.S. citizenship; Democrats voted against it.

Republicans also passed the 15th Amendment which gave slaves the right to vote. Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for it.

Long after slavery was over, the Democratic Party continued down their path to deny African Americans their rights. Wikipedia refers to this as the era of "disenfranchisement" when "Democrats worked to exclude blacks" from civil liberties.

The Democratic Party identified itself as the 'white man's party' and demonized the Republican Party as being 'Negro dominated,' even though whites were in control.

The Democratic Party was responsible for passing Jim Crow laws, in addition to Black Civil Codes that forced Americans to utilize separate drinking fountains, swimming pools, and other facilities in the 20th century.

Even Democratic icons such as Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while in the U.S. Senate. Sen. Al Gore, Sr., D-Tenn., also opposed it.

It was also a Republican, Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois, who wrote numerous pieces of legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which banned discrimination in housing.

It was Republican President Richard M. Nixon who introduced the "Philadelphia Plan" that serves as the blueprint for affirmative action today.

It was Republican President Ronald Reagan who in 1984 signed into law the holiday now known as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

That's right, these were Republicans, not Democrats.

So you want to explain, (now that your Southern strategy myth is debunked) just when this magical change in ideology took over? I guess since you can't find any actual evidence of this Southern strategy, you now need to push another narrative of after 200 years of the Republican party defending the Black race in America while Democrats all hated them, we all just somehow changed our minds on both sides?

Yeah. lets roll with that BS for a while
 
No, dude, it hinges on you nominated the Birther Trump. The guy who tells minority members of Congress to "go back where you came from" and basks in "send her back" chants at his Klan rallies.

I'll admit, it used to take more connecting of the dots to understand the GOP's cringeworthy views on race. We used to have this concept of a "dog whistle," which is totally obsolete in the Trump era. He just says the racist stuff out loud!

Sorry, GOP, plausible deniability is out the window at this point.

Thats the great thing about history. It does suffer fools or plausible deniability. Democrats have been the party of racism since the day it was created and still is today.
 
Back
Top Bottom