• 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!

If only white males voted


So do you deny the fact of Helms and Thurmond's defections? Do you deny that the South suddenly went from Democratic to Republican around 1965?

Or are you unable to admit that the Right has some dirty laundry as far as racism goes? The Left has plenty. We both know that. So does the Right. Deal with facts.
 

At the end of the day a Democratic President shepherded and signed the legislation, and racists suddenly started voting Republican.
 
You are ignoring the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery when only white male property owners voted.

This is technically true but also deceptive; Lincoln didn't run on a campaign of "I'm going to abolish slavery the second I'm elected.", he ran on a platform of banning slavery in new territories. Before the actual civil war abolitionists were a fringe group. He only made the decision to ban slavery halfway through the civil war when he was confident that he could not get the south to rejoin the Union with compromise.
 

In many of Lincolns personal writings he lamented that he couldn't do more sooner on the slavery issue. He did what he could when he could and
he pushed hard for the 13th amendment at a time when the war was basically over and there was nothing in it for him politicaly, he was a good man.
 


Or we could just make statistics compulsory in school so that some people at least learn what "correlation is causation" means and don't repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again.
 

Then you are apparently only interest in partisan points, rather than the whole picture.
 

Nothing accurate here. I posted the numbers. This was a SECTIONAL issue, not a partisan issue. Democrats were more supportive from a percentage standpoint, ACROSS THE BOARD than Republicans. Far more Republicans in the North (where nearly all Democrats supported the Act) voted against Civil Rights. This is nothing but conservative revisionism that has been making the rounds for years. No basis in reality. The issue was a SECTIONAL one. Not a partisan one.
 

At the end of the day, SOUTHERNERS fillibustered the Civil Rights Act, and NORTHERNERS broke the filibuster and voted the act in. Since we know that, percentage-wise, more Democrats supported the act than Republicans, AND that this was a sectional issue not a partisan one, we know that your comments above are not relevant. You may not be interested in going round and round with this topic, so once you stop posting misinformation, we can certainly cease that.
 
Last edited:

The Democratic Party of 1960 is nothing like the Democratic Party of today.
 
The Democratic Party of 1960 is nothing like the Democratic Party of today.

Yes. Something people miss when they try to label either Republican or Democrat as the 'bad guy'.
 
Or we could just make statistics compulsory in school so that some people at least learn what "correlation is causation" means and don't repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again.

agreed. giving women the vote was a mistake in the first place, and keeping them involved has been a mistake ever since. obviously they have poor faculty for it, and frankly, we shouldn't be forcing them to worry their pretty heads about matters that, frankly, often have nothing to do with cooking or child care.

it's bad for them, bad for us, and bad for the country, and long since past time we corrected that mistake.
 
Last edited:
Eggheads get henpecked.
 
I stole this from another thread but it fits here.

Lyndon B. Johnson | Leftist Racism Watch

So what's your point? Lincoln had some interesting, not exactly complimentary things to say about black people, too.

Or is your point that you're outraged that a Democrat wanted them to vote for Democrats? I'm confused. I never claimed Lyndon Johnson was a saint, but he could have vetoed civil rights, and he could have convinced his friends in the Senate to vote against it. You've got to remember that Johnson wasn't sitting around waiting for Kennedy to call him, he was in the Senate where he was the King of the backroom deal.

Point is, he could have killed civil rights if he wanted to, but he didn't.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists."

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?”

Guess who said those things?
 


As long as you learn what "correlation is not causation" means so you won't make failed jokes base on the same ignorance.
 
Yes. Something people miss when they try to label either Republican or Democrat as the 'bad guy'.

You can't label either party like that. Both parties have plenty of dirty laundry to air when it comes to race. Some are too partisan to admit that, which is sad.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…