• 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!

Rampant Racism Among the Democrats

Your own post demonstrates you do not have a good knowledge of racism in America and the difference between the left advocating for INCLUSION while the right pushes their RACIST policies....For you to pretend that the old white racist Democratic party still goes on in an altered form but with the same components is simply ridiculous on its face.
I should be easily disproven then with a simple short retort. Name any policy you'd like showing where racial politics, which the Democrats still stand for today, justifies defining in law a person by their race not character for the purposes of inclusion.

Affirmative Action and the lot are just more Dixiecrat games to enshrine their class systems and keep racism alive and well for their political advantage. You want me to explain more using Affirmative Action or you going to keep pretending the old racists leaders in the Democratic party didn't enshrine their ideal and still influence the ideas today?
 
By the way, is everyone aware of the fact that Low Down's avatar is actually a photo issued by the Social Security Administration in 1935?

GrampsSS.jpg

Funny that, considering that Low Down's positions on anything of that nature is squarely anti-government.
 


Yeah, funny how that works eh? All the racists used to be in the Democratic party.

Then the Republican party decided they wanted them, and used the racist Southern Strategy for over 1/2 a century. And surprise surprise, all the racists have now gathered under the Republican banner.
 
Last edited:
I should be easily disproven then with a simple short retort. Name any policy you'd like showing where racial politics, which the Democrats still stand for today, justifies defining in law a person by their race not character for the purposes of inclusion.

The Voting Rights Act. Pity it was gutted by right wing activist judges in the SCOTUS.
The VRA was squarely aimed at Jim Crow style voting restrictions and other nonsense sanctioned by Deep South states to prevent black people from voting.

It was a Democrat idea.
The Dixiecrats don't exist anymore because Nixon's Southern Strategy turned all of them Republican Red.

So no one is talking about Dixiecrats...the Democrats in the East, West and North SEVERED ties with the Dixiecrats in the 1960's because the Dixiecrats were trying to preserve their old "Solid South" Jim Crow values whereas the rest of the Democratic Party had evolved.

You flunked History class in school.
 
Of course, racism is an old, old tradition with Democrats.




I'm so old that I can remember the Rev. Martin Luther's admonition to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But maybe that was just a piece of throw-away rhetoric for Democrats.

You're so old you referred to him as Martin Luther Coon, just tell the truth, everyone already knows.
 
I should be easily disproven then with a simple short retort.

I already did that.

Affirmative Action and the lot are just more Dixiecrat games to enshrine their class systems and keep racism alive and well for their political advantage.

There are no more Dixiecrats. They were absorbed into the GOP.

Trying to assist the historical victims of racism is not racist. You seem to intentionally NOT comprehend that simple fact and your inability to do so puts you pushing a false premise which dooms all you write about this subject.

And there is another retort.
 
What is the year on the calendar on your wall?

The core beliefs are the same.

Democrats- You work, I eat.
Republicans - Who better than Abe Lincoln:
"As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education."

The core principles are the same no matter what year.

 
The core beliefs are the same.

Democrats- You work, I eat.
Republicans - Who better than Abe Lincoln:
"As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education."

The core principles are the same no matter what year.



And now all the racists have gathered under the Republican banner. What's your point?
 
The core beliefs are the same.

Democrats- You work, I eat.
Republicans - Who better than Abe Lincoln:
"As each man has one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands to furnish food, it was probably intended that that particular pair of hands should feed that particular mouth -- that each head is the natural guardian, director, and protector of the hands and mouth inseparably connected with it; and that being so, every head should be cultivated, and improved, by whatever will add to its capacity for performing its charge. In one word Free Labor insists on universal education."

The core principles are the same no matter what year.

That is utter nonsense and completely false. The Democrat Party of 2018 bears little or no resemblance to the Democratic Party of the Dixiecrats of three quarters of a century ago.
 
Of course, racism is an old, old tradition with Democrats.




I'm so old that I can remember the Rev. Martin Luther's admonition to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But maybe that was just a piece of throw-away rhetoric for Democrats.

I am too LowDown. One of the most racist things the Democrats and other dogooders have done to people who happen to be black is to demand that they be included no matter how much standards have to be lowered to qualify somebody or how many more qualified people have to stand aside in order for a black person to be included. It is racist because:

1. To require 'diversity' by any means necessary puts a competent black person, no matter how qualified, in the position of being seen as the 'token black' or 'the affirmative action employee' or 'getting his/her job just because he/she is black and not because he/she was qualified for it.' It happens when the employee is hired, and when he/she gets a raise or is promoted or is given some award. It is a cruel thing to do to a competent employee who happens to be black.

2. Such policy implies that black people overall are less intelligent, less capable, less educated, less able to learn and earn credentials on their own, and achieve on their own merits. It is insulting and demeaning to anybody put in that position.

3. It implies that somebody who is not black is incapable of treating all people fairly and equitably in all things.

4. It too often instills a sense of victimization, oppression, and injustice in people and, as a result, encourages them to be suspicious, hostile and angry and dress and behave and speak differently and use 'black' names with the net result that they remove themselves from the mainstream.

5. It requires people to see race first and forbids them to treat skin color as of no more importance than hair color or eye color.

Slavery ended in this country more than 150 years ago. We have not had segregation anywhere and we have had equal rights for all for well over 50 years now. The vast majority of Americans have no memory of segregation at all. But racism is so profitable for some politicians and all the race baiters of all skin colors and ethnicities, it benefits THEM to keep racism alive and well by pushing the victim, injustice, 'white people gonna keep you down' mantra alive and well. And any people of color who dare stray off that plantation are thorough excoriated, accused, blamed, and ostracized, if not actively destroyed even as any white person who dares speak any other doctrine will surely be labeled racist.

It is wrong. It is cruel. It is evil.
 
"[Racism doesn't exist but if it does libruls are racist!]"

:roll:
 
2. Such policy implies that black people overall are less intelligent, less capable, less educated, less able to learn and earn credentials on their own, and achieve on their own merits. It is insulting and demeaning to anybody put in that position.

I've omitted the rest of your dishonest hand-wringing, which was no more than pretended outrage about a subject you do not care about that you weaponized for the sole purpose of attacking the left.

I just wanted to note that if one replaced "policy" with "platform", what you said here is a perfect description of the conservative mantra that Democrat welfare policies have "entrapped" black people, aka, "the Democrat plantation." Bet you never considered that.









PS: Really? Another far right Trumpist who changes their lean to "independent"? It doesn't make your posts seem any more credible, you know...
 
There are no more Dixiecrats. They were absorbed into the GOP.
There are 26 known Dixiecrats you can follow post the 1960s. How many switched party affilation to the GOP?

Trying to assist the historical victims of racism is not racist.
Agreed. You just can't use radicalized polices to achieve that aim.

The Voting Rights Act
I am not really sure of your point here as that is bi-partison and not radicalized policy. If your point is about claims of "voter suppression" in general it's a totally different topic. Does it happen - yes, of course - is the primary purpose of ideas like 'voter ID' laws disenfranchisement. Highly questionable.

Current voter suppression positions are not racist except in so much as postioning minorities can't get IDs.

As to actual Act. Who consisted of the opposition to the The Voting Rights Act? The Voting record clearly shows more republicans in favour as a percentage of their vote.

It was a Democrat idea.
Democrats were not all racists. They simply always had a bigger problem with racism.

Nixon's Southern Strategy turned all of them Republican Red.
If you repeat it enough….yeah not really how the objective indicators point. There are way more factors than racism that moved the south red. Or do you have an easy explanation for why the known politically involved racists stayed in the democratic party?

the Democrats in the East, West and North SEVERED ties with the Dixiecrats in the 1960's because the Dixiecrats were trying to preserve their old "Solid South" Jim Crow values whereas the rest of the Democratic Party had evolved.
Severd ties no but force their hand yes. We are no doubt a less racist nation overall. The problem is a lot never left the party. It not hidden either barely a meeting can go by without race coming into the conversation. Only democrates have proposed polices and postions based on race. I am neither saying all democrats or that republicans are without, simply the problem is more on the left than the right at this current time[as it has in the past in america].

You flunked History class in school.
I am sure last I was in general history class I would have thought same as you, but then I read up on the idea that the racists switched parties and it is far from a fact.
 
Last edited:
Democrats are trying to make sure that they have blacks (and females and hispanics for that matter) properly represented in the leadership positions of their party. This is true.

Republicans are busy around the country trying to make it harder for blacks and hispanics to vote because the conservative supreme court struck down the voter rights law. This is leftist fever dream bull****.

The Voting Rights Act is struck down in part. Within a short time, the states covered by the Act enact laws making it marginally more difficult for certain groups to vote. Strangely, similar laws were passed where republicans were in control, but not where democrats were. A GOP spokesperson lists voter ID as one of the factors in helping his party win, Trump spreads lies about phony votes in California, a commission appointed to look into the matter of voter fraud disbands after finding nothing. A court found that NC, I believe, diluted black votes in its redistricting with “surgical precision.”

All of this cynically echoes in different forms the old Nixon “southern strategy” response to the civil rights movement.

Face it. The GOP has a demographic problem: the electorate is getting browner and they are getting whiter. Their solutions have been to do forms of outreach, highlight minorities in the party, and for a time appeal to Hispanics whom they correctly see as more conservative than others on social issues. (The latter effort somewhat derailed by Trump’s anti-immigrant hysteria and other racially tinged apoeals.) You know, good stuff. The darker side of their response have been various voter suppression efforts. Understandable, if deplorable, but a natural strategic response. Democrats did similar things in the old South for almost 100 years in response to emancipation and civil rights.
 
Of course, racism is an old, old tradition with Democrats.




I'm so old that I can remember the Rev. Martin Luther's admonition to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But maybe that was just a piece of throw-away rhetoric for Democrats.

With Democrats it has always been, "Do as I say, not as I do".
 
While I question the source and the intention, there is a conversation to be had on looking to reverse racism to counter racism. Intended or not, the result of looking at "white men" as the exclusion reason is inherently racism.

Saw a segment on the news the other day where a male activist was suing colleges for being discriminatory against men. With females making up more than 50% of the student body, men were being exempted from scholarships, etc that were only offered to women. He's got a good case.
 
PS: Really? Another far right Trumpist who changes their lean to "independent"? It doesn't make your posts seem any more credible, you know...

I thought I had noticed that occurring among the Trump base, but wasn't sure. Well spotted.
 
There are 26 known Dixiecrats you can follow post the 1960s. How many switched party affilation to the GOP?

Name them.

I am not really sure of your point here as that is bi-partison and not radicalized policy. If your point is about claims of "voter suppression" in general it's a totally different topic. Does it happen - yes, of course - is the primary purpose of ideas like 'voter ID' laws disenfranchisement. Highly questionable.

Current voter suppression positions are not racist except in so much as postioning minorities can't get IDs.

As to actual Act. Who consisted of the opposition to the The Voting Rights Act? The Voting record clearly shows more republicans in favour as a percentage of their vote.

The only "bipartisan" was Everett Dirksen, who was pressured by LBJ and only agreed to support it after witnessing the violence in Selma, and recognizing that violent revolution would ensue otherwise.

House Vote: D217-R54
Senate Vote: D79-R18

So much for your claim of bipartisanship.

Democrats were not all racists. They simply always had a bigger problem with racism.

Another nonsense statement by a nineteen year old who flunked History.
Of course Democrats had bigger problems with racism because they by and large OPPOSED it, except for their racist Southern counterparts, who would soon become Southern Republicans shortly after.

If you repeat it enough….yeah not really how the objective indicators point. There are way more factors than racism that moved the south red.

Name them.

Severd ties no but force their hand yes. We are no doubt a less racist nation overall. The problem is a lot never left the party. It not hidden either barely a meeting can go by without race coming into the conversation.

Clarify. Are you saying that liberals hold meetings and "tell nigger jokes" when they think no one is listening?

I am sure last I was in general history class I would have thought same as you, but then I read up on the idea that the racists switched parties and it is far from a fact.

English please?

Your writing sounds like that of a nineteen year old.
A nineteen year old who flunked History.

By the way, are you also from Canada, like your "neighbour" who goes by "Individual"?

What is it with all these foreign SOCK PUPPETS invading DP lately?
 
Of course, racism is an old, old tradition with Democrats.




I'm so old that I can remember the Rev. Martin Luther's admonition to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But maybe that was just a piece of throw-away rhetoric for Democrats.


Wow. Three whole people said that? Sounds like rampant racism to me!

I can post some quotes from Trump supporters that are pretty ugly and racist and misogynistic and so on. I assume if I do that, you'll say there's rampant bigotry among Republicans.....amirite?
 
What is it with all these foreign SOCK PUPPETS invading DP lately?
So let me get strait, your argument against is highlighting a known fact it was an LBJ crafted bill and just brush off the fact a greater % of republicans voted in favour of it as a matter of record. Speculate I am 19[F], dual citizen Canadian[T],have bad writing[T], have deceptive motives[F] and am confused about who is a Dixiecrat[F]?

I guess as they say when you can't win on message attack the massager. The answer for your information is very few politically involved racist democrats changed parties, although mostly marginalized they pop in and out remaining apart of the party until their deaths. Ideas not people being the point. I am not arguing the democrats of today are the same pre-LBJ. Politics has greatly changed.

Are you saying that liberals hold meetings and "tell nigger jokes" when they think no one is listening?
No. But the fact you think that is what that means could explain why this seems like such a diffcult idea for you to discuss. Racism begins and ends by the degree to which one embracing discriminating people based on racial identity instead of character.Liberals are for the most part not racist same as most of the county. The problem is when they get 'liberals' who clearly are filtering the world in those terms, rather than remove them, they clearly have been incorporated and a neo-segregatist lexicon has formed as part of the modren platform.

The problem is real by every metric; but, let me guess in you opinion most conservatives/republicans are racist or some ideological possessed simlar statement. Like so many things on the left, there is no problem with the lefts extremes. It is the right who doesn't call out and try to address their fringes :roll:
 
Last edited:
There are 26 known Dixiecrats you can follow post the 1960s. How many switched party affilation to the GOP?

Perhaps you have heard of Strom Thurmond? Phil Gramm? Richard Shelby? And a host of state and local officials.

And you are ignoring the reality that while southern politicians used to be Democratic, with the emergence of Wallace in 68 and 72 and Nixons Southern strategy, they simply started their careers as members of the GOP as older Dems retired and left office.

But then, out people know this history. I wonder why you do not?
 
Last edited:
So let me get strait, your argument against is highlighting a known fact it was an LBJ crafted bill and just brush off the fact a greater % of republicans voted in favour of it as a matter of record. Speculate I am 19[F], dual citizen Canadian[T],have bad writing[T], have deceptive motives[F] and am confused about who is a Dixiecrat[F]?

I guess as they say when you can't win on message attack the massager. The answer for your information is very few politically involved racist democrats changed parties, although mostly marginalized they pop in and out remaining apart of the party until their deaths. Ideas not people being the point. I am not arguing the democrats of today are the same pre-LBJ. Politics has greatly changed.


No. But the fact you think that is what that means could explain why this seems like such a diffcult idea for you to discuss. Racism begins and ends by the degree to which one embracing discriminating people based on racial identity instead of character.Liberals are for the most part not racist same as most of the county. The problem is when they get 'liberals' who clearly are filtering the world in those terms, rather than remove them, they clearly have been incorporated and a neo-segregatist lexicon has formed as part of the modren platform.

The problem is real by every metric; but, let me guess in you opinion most conservatives/republicans are racist or some ideological possessed simlar statement. Like so many things on the left, there is no problem with the lefts extremes. It is the right who doesn't call out and try to address their fringes :roll:

Melania, is that you???

721c07e97e0f1e16d37007aec8957bb8.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom