10-13-2018, 12:50 AM
Every person is different and so on BUT collectively and historically the Democratic Party has been the party of racism in America.
Now a lot of people are taken in buy the illusion that the Republicans became Democrats and the Democrats became Republicans and therefore the black people who used to vote Republican now vote Republican.
Make sense? Only if you believe cats used to be dogs or Left used to be right or up used to be down or the like.
No, the party is the party and always was the party. The historical racism is NOT a taint on the Republican party but on the Democratic Party. The party did not change from one party to the next, the black folks just joined a party of racists for economic benefit. That was in the 1930's. Look to see when the black vote came away from the Republican party what the general consensus was in the Democratic Party back then. How strong was the KKK and which party were its constituents.
The blacks voted for Roosevelt's New Deal despite the Democratic Party being prejudice and bigoted towards Black Americans, because times were tough and the Republicans did not have a similar offer.
Once over they were further consolidated by LBJ and JFK in the 1960's.
Now Barry Goldwater may have been a racist. LBJ and JFK may have been very tolerant and not racist. Certainly the decision of Barry Goldwater to not initially sign the Civil Rights Act and the Democrats to introduce it COULD be seen that way and rationally so. Of course thee is no context in either but the end result. What I mean to say is this. Without my reading too far into any other policies or beliefs it is not unbelievable to assume that if a man who wishes to be President and is up against someone more popular, who drops a political payload and asks you to sign something that you expect will get him elected. Something perhaps you should have or could have thought of, then you have probably about four options: 1) give up and withdraw, 2) sign the bill and acknowledge he did a great thing and smile knowing that your Presidential race is effectively over, 3) Try a horrid smear campaign and accuse him of colluding with the Russians or 4) taking a position that devalues the bill and hopefully gives you support for those who may not e 100% on board with the bill knowing you may well lose. A moment that defines a politician. LBJ is also quoted as saying that "These niggers will be voting for us for 100 years". But if he WAS really THAT racist then would political expediency be a decent trade off to his racist views (or were those words accurate in the first place)?"
A lot of this is grey area. The big switch seems a lot less clear cut. We know Democrats won over the black vote and that Democratic leadership did being the Civil Rights Act into being (but you will be shocked at the party votes for or against). Republicans did free the slaves. Black Americans did join in two waves to the Democratic party first to a majority in the 1930's and then 1960's.
With that voting bloc consolidated, Democrats now look to Mexican and South American illegal immigrant votes and votes from African and Middle Eastern refugees.
As far as I know the Black Americans are not necessarily any better of being with one party as being with another. There certainly are racists in America as there are elsewhere but they come in all different political party affiliations as they do not discriminate by race, sex, age or nationality. I will say though Cities with top to bottom Democratic leadership are amoung those in which Black Americans struggle most with unemployment, poverty, crime, drugs and single parenthood. Inconvenient facts for the Democratic Party. Especially when they have the temerity to treat the Black Americans trying something different as being traitorous and stupid and Uncle Toms.
Now a lot of people are taken in buy the illusion that the Republicans became Democrats and the Democrats became Republicans and therefore the black people who used to vote Republican now vote Republican.
Make sense? Only if you believe cats used to be dogs or Left used to be right or up used to be down or the like.
No, the party is the party and always was the party. The historical racism is NOT a taint on the Republican party but on the Democratic Party. The party did not change from one party to the next, the black folks just joined a party of racists for economic benefit. That was in the 1930's. Look to see when the black vote came away from the Republican party what the general consensus was in the Democratic Party back then. How strong was the KKK and which party were its constituents.
The blacks voted for Roosevelt's New Deal despite the Democratic Party being prejudice and bigoted towards Black Americans, because times were tough and the Republicans did not have a similar offer.
Once over they were further consolidated by LBJ and JFK in the 1960's.
Now Barry Goldwater may have been a racist. LBJ and JFK may have been very tolerant and not racist. Certainly the decision of Barry Goldwater to not initially sign the Civil Rights Act and the Democrats to introduce it COULD be seen that way and rationally so. Of course thee is no context in either but the end result. What I mean to say is this. Without my reading too far into any other policies or beliefs it is not unbelievable to assume that if a man who wishes to be President and is up against someone more popular, who drops a political payload and asks you to sign something that you expect will get him elected. Something perhaps you should have or could have thought of, then you have probably about four options: 1) give up and withdraw, 2) sign the bill and acknowledge he did a great thing and smile knowing that your Presidential race is effectively over, 3) Try a horrid smear campaign and accuse him of colluding with the Russians or 4) taking a position that devalues the bill and hopefully gives you support for those who may not e 100% on board with the bill knowing you may well lose. A moment that defines a politician. LBJ is also quoted as saying that "These niggers will be voting for us for 100 years". But if he WAS really THAT racist then would political expediency be a decent trade off to his racist views (or were those words accurate in the first place)?"
A lot of this is grey area. The big switch seems a lot less clear cut. We know Democrats won over the black vote and that Democratic leadership did being the Civil Rights Act into being (but you will be shocked at the party votes for or against). Republicans did free the slaves. Black Americans did join in two waves to the Democratic party first to a majority in the 1930's and then 1960's.
With that voting bloc consolidated, Democrats now look to Mexican and South American illegal immigrant votes and votes from African and Middle Eastern refugees.
As far as I know the Black Americans are not necessarily any better of being with one party as being with another. There certainly are racists in America as there are elsewhere but they come in all different political party affiliations as they do not discriminate by race, sex, age or nationality. I will say though Cities with top to bottom Democratic leadership are amoung those in which Black Americans struggle most with unemployment, poverty, crime, drugs and single parenthood. Inconvenient facts for the Democratic Party. Especially when they have the temerity to treat the Black Americans trying something different as being traitorous and stupid and Uncle Toms.