- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'll never understand how the black population can support Democrats
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:46 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:46 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Which is the same thing as saying Republicans were more supportive of the Civil Rights Act than Dems, right?
It all depends on perspective (hard numbers versus percentage).
1
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:47 pm to partsman103
They've convinced the vast majority of the black population that not just voting Democrat but being a Democrat is part of their identity.
That's what Biden was putting in front of them when he said that. He wasn't just making an equivalency, which is how most of us will take it, he was going well beyond that stating it IS your identity.
The idea is that you can't just "swap" parties if you whole identity is on the line. You are surrendering your entire history, family, culture, and being to swap parties (once you've bought in).
Which is why the Dems are so big on identity politics. They want to expand this to every possible identity and not just join the immutable trait to the Dem party but to merge them so they can not be separated.
This is why the Dem party can get whole groups to vote for their own demise and against their self-interest. Because that identity holds more value than those interests.
That's what Biden was putting in front of them when he said that. He wasn't just making an equivalency, which is how most of us will take it, he was going well beyond that stating it IS your identity.
The idea is that you can't just "swap" parties if you whole identity is on the line. You are surrendering your entire history, family, culture, and being to swap parties (once you've bought in).
Which is why the Dems are so big on identity politics. They want to expand this to every possible identity and not just join the immutable trait to the Dem party but to merge them so they can not be separated.
This is why the Dem party can get whole groups to vote for their own demise and against their self-interest. Because that identity holds more value than those interests.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:48 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
Reagan pushed the myth of 'welfare fraud' by blacks in the south and his voters loved it. Much like voter fraud today, there was zero proof to substantiate the claim, but the idea that people of color were defrauding a system, Reagan hinted, by and for white people was political gold.
Launching his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, had more to do with speaking the "states rights" language of people who were against the Civil Rights Act.
Philadelphia, Mississippi, was the site of the murder of three civil rights workers. He wanted to hammer home that message.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:52 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
Reagan pushed the myth of 'welfare fraud' by blacks in the south and his voters loved it. Much like voter fraud today, there was zero proof to substantiate the claim, but the idea that people of color were defrauding a system, Reagan hinted, by and for white people was political gold.
And in your opinion, that is why Reagon won? Not because Carter destroyed the fricking economy???
Posted on 8/27/24 at 2:55 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
Goldwater had promised that if he won, he would kill the voters right act.
This is disingenuous considering he voted for the previous 2 civil rights acts, was a founding member of the NAACP chapter of Az. He opposed the 64 act because he said it was unconstitutional. Johnson ran a campaign trying to tie Goldwater to the Klan, which was a Democrat group.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 3:06 pm to BugAC
quote:
And in your opinion, that is why Reagon won? Not because Carter destroyed the fricking economy???
I voted for Reagan.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 3:18 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
It all depends on perspective (hard numbers versus percentage).
I think it's more a logic thing, right?
There are 10 million Republicans and 100 million Democrats. 20% of Dems are for civil rights and 90% of Republicans are for civil rights. It would be pretty silly to argue Democrats are more for civil rights than Republicans - you get that, right?
Posted on 8/27/24 at 3:22 pm to BugAC
quote:
This is disingenuous considering he voted for the previous 2 civil rights acts, was a founding member of the NAACP chapter of Az. He opposed the 64 act because he said it was unconstitutional. Johnson ran a campaign trying to tie Goldwater to the Klan, which was a Democrat group.
I've already explained this - Democrats were divided on civil rights and when the national party decided to support LBJs civil rights bill, the southern democrats left the party. Goldwater ditched Civil Rights and the ERA from his platform and launched a campaign targeting disillusioned segregationists and evangelicals in the south.
In 1964 vs LBJ, he was looking at only winning Arizona. But then dropping Civil Rights gave him LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC. It was a political decision. The republicans continued to build a base in the south with the ex-segregationists.
MLK vocally opposed Goldwater “The prospect of Senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality, and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represents”
Posted on 8/27/24 at 3:53 pm to WaltWhite504
Example Strom Thurmond. Republicans pushed this corpse around DC for decades.
Strom was a democrat and firm believer in Jim Crow segregation. Head of the Dixiecrats faction of the democratic party. He too received awards from the NAACP in the 40s and 50s for being anti-lynching of black men (because that was evidently a political thing). But he didnt believe in equality.
Then JFK changed things. JFK wanted to challenge some of the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the south. JFK also opposed some of the laws which prevented blacks from voting. Thurmond and his Dixiecrats opposed Kennedy publicly and it created division in the party. Thurmond began voting against party lines and created an alliance with Goldwater in the senate. The Civil Rights act passed in July 1964 and that September Thurmond very publicly left the Democrats and became Republican. Many Southern Democrats would follow.
BTW - Strom kept that seat until near his death in 2003. Lindsay is his successor. That senate seat has only had two asses in it since 1956. Republicans claim they hate career politicians.
Strom was a democrat and firm believer in Jim Crow segregation. Head of the Dixiecrats faction of the democratic party. He too received awards from the NAACP in the 40s and 50s for being anti-lynching of black men (because that was evidently a political thing). But he didnt believe in equality.
Then JFK changed things. JFK wanted to challenge some of the discriminatory Jim Crow laws in the south. JFK also opposed some of the laws which prevented blacks from voting. Thurmond and his Dixiecrats opposed Kennedy publicly and it created division in the party. Thurmond began voting against party lines and created an alliance with Goldwater in the senate. The Civil Rights act passed in July 1964 and that September Thurmond very publicly left the Democrats and became Republican. Many Southern Democrats would follow.
BTW - Strom kept that seat until near his death in 2003. Lindsay is his successor. That senate seat has only had two asses in it since 1956. Republicans claim they hate career politicians.
This post was edited on 8/27/24 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 8/27/24 at 7:00 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
Example Strom Thurmond.
Go read. I mentioned Strom Thurmond.
quote:
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died. Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
You too, are a believer of the propaganda from the Democrat party. Congrats!
Posted on 8/27/24 at 7:00 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
I voted for Reagan.
That did not answer the question.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 9:21 pm to Mushroom1968
The Democrat party is still every bit as reeecist as it has ever been. They've only flipped the SCRIPT to pander to minorities.
This post was edited on 8/27/24 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 8/27/24 at 9:49 pm to Ostrich
quote:
Are you wondering why blacks don't support the GOP, while quoting nazis?
The holocaust was white on white crime.
- Whoopi Goldberg
Plantation mentality gives no fuks about anything of other peoples, that doesn't have anything to do with "but... slavery".
If you believe otherwise spend a month in the inner city.
This post was edited on 8/27/24 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 8/27/24 at 10:02 pm to WaltWhite504
quote:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Act of 1965 pushed by LBJ
The division was north / south rather than along party lines.
Southern democrats strongly opposed the legislation, the National Democratic party said this is who we are now. As a result southern democrats left the party and republicans welcomed them with open arms.
Politicians like Strom Thurmond left the Democrats in 1964 outraged by civil rights. He led a group of democrats over to Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the the Neo-Cons who were being formed that era. Over the next few years several southern democrats would make the conversion notably Ronnie Thompson, Jessie Helms, and almost all judges and politicians from Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia who had supported segregationist legislation. Other segregationists like Gov. Wallace turned independent.
Democrats kicked out the Jim Crow segregationists and the southern "slave states" have been largely red ever since. The move came at a cost to Democrats who had enjoyed a large political majority. The Republicans had a new stronghold in the southern states. Combined with the evangelicals, they would peak in the Reagan 80s. Trump Republicans have purged the neo-cons and globalists (RINOS) and now are dominated by the offspring of the pro-segregationists who run on the anti-immigration and anti-female rights ticket.
Nice.
You can copy and paste. How special
Must be a fairly recent propaganda piece, with those current issues mentioned.
Regurgitate that crap in your bubble where the other mouth breathers will suck it up.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 10:06 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
Majority of blacks are in the South.
Say...WHAT... now!?!?
Was this a typo?
Posted on 8/27/24 at 10:22 pm to grich31
quote:
Because Dems are party of inclusion/diversity and not like GOP who is party of inclusion/diversity only when they want to say some of my best friends are black/brown and when it benefits them to have black/brown folks as tokens to say look black/brown people support our cause, just my opinion
DEI and CRT are some of the most divisive of conceptual academia.
It's divide and conquer.
Read up on The Art of War and How to take over a country without firing a shot.
Posted on 8/27/24 at 10:23 pm to TigerBaitOohHaHa
quote:
quote:
The parties flipped after all that
bullshite... the story goes like this: Democrats so angry at the signing of the Civil Rights Act all decided to become Republican. This makes ZERO sense considering a greater percentage of Republicans voted FOR the civil rights act than Democrats. As a matter of fact the Democrats tried to filibuster.
This!
Posted on 8/28/24 at 7:25 am to WaltWhite504
quote:
Much like voter fraud today, there was zero proof to substantiate the claim
I have never once claimed that the election was stole from Trump. But to say there is zero proof of any voter fraud is just ignorant. Look at the recent reports out of Arizona and Georgia.
What the left can't wrap their head around and what seems like common sense to me is the fact that with mail in ballets I can commit voter fraud and there is zero way for the state to catch me committing it. Mail is voting is asking for fraud to be committed. Again more fraudulent votes could have been cast for Trump over Biden so I'm not claiming the election was stolen. My claim is there was certainly voter fraud.
Posted on 8/28/24 at 8:05 am to Wolfwireless
quote:
This makes ZERO sense considering a greater percentage of Republicans voted FOR the civil rights act than Democrats. As a matter of fact the Democrats tried to filibuster.
Why are you incapable of understanding that the democrats splintered and broke during the 1960s era. The northern democratic party adopted the civil rights platform and rebranded. Southern democrats either went along with the change or got voted out. The GOP is going through such a change now. Rinos who dont switch to Maga are getting voted out,
This was the electoral map in the 1956 election.
This was the map in 1964
The parties changed dramatically. The voting bases didn't change, the party platforms did. Following the Kennedy assassination in 1963 the democrats had enormous support. They had been hesitant to lose the southern base politically, but Kennedy was sympathetic to the civil rights movement. He began to push little things which pissed off southern democrats. The party began to splinter. In 1964 democrats did not need the southern states to win and found it politically beneficial to change the party's position on Civil Rights.
As you can see by the map. Republicans had zero chance to win in 1964. Goldwater saw this an an opportunity to build a new base for the future. He purged the ERA and civil rights from the GOP platform and rebranded as the 'traditional values' party. This appealed to voters in southern states who didnt want to vote democrat again. As a result, Goldwater was able to increase his electoral vote from 5 to 53.
The idea that America was once great but being destroyed by ivy league Kennedy progressives has remained the GOP motto. This is when the GOP changed from being pure economic conservatives to fundamentalists pushing traditional values.
This is also when the national Democratic party shifted from being the Jacksonian party to Kennedy progressives.
If you dont believe me - why did Trump hang a democrat in his office and say he was his favorite president? Democrats want to remove Jackson from money.
This is all very simple. If you cant follow it, you must be low IQ. Yall keep saying the same thing over and over - citing the voting record of the 1964 civil rights amendment. I am not contesting that. I am saying the election of 1964, which was after the civil rights vote is when the party platform changes occurred.
This post was edited on 8/28/24 at 8:17 am
Posted on 8/28/24 at 9:55 am to WaltWhite504
quote:
Why are you incapable of understanding that the democrats splintered and broke during the 1960s era.
Because they didn't. If they did then all levels of government would have switched. Looking at a 1964 presidential voting map is comically simple minded.
quote:
After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
I've quoted this before and you've ignored it. If you don't believe it, fact check it and post the results.
quote:
The GOP is going through such a change now. Rinos who dont switch to Maga are getting voted out,
Wow, even more simplistic thought process. It's cute trying to equate MAGA with racist Democrats from the 60s. Your problem, is you bought the propaganda and have not done any research other than repeat the lies told to you.
quote:
The parties changed dramatically. The voting bases didn't change, the party platforms did.
This is completely false because it doesn't explain why all of those racist new Republicans kept voting for Democrats well into the 90s. You use 1 presidential race, where Johnson tied Goldwater to the Klan (a democrat organization) as your evidence. You ignore decades worth of data that completely contradicts your opinion.
quote:
I am saying the election of 1964, which was after the civil rights vote is when the party platform changes occurred.
But the statistics disagree with this 100%. Give me a minute and i will post you the evidence if you don't believe me.
This post was edited on 8/28/24 at 9:58 am
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News