[Discussion] Democrats and Republicans... What say you?

[iNotorious]

None but republicans are taking net neutrality so they are my enemies.

 

[Callypigia]

This is so stupid.....they conveniently not mention things after the 1960's because party ideologies changed after. They aren't talking about the truth of the Democratic party now or how the Republicans have many bigoted policies now. This is nothing but propaganda they been using for years.

It did not; It changed it's talk to a more palatable speech. It's like Lyndon B. Johnson said when he was passing his Great Society laws: "This'll have n****** voting Democrat for 200 years." Democratic polices in the 60s and beyond have done terrible damage to African Americans. Their goal was to keep them poor and keep them dependent on the government. Even now we're seeing the shift where they are convincing people that segregation is good again; as long as it's African Americans making the decision. The liberal media continues to portray them negatively, and has been trying to stir up race conflict; which never works well for minorities. The Democratic party has always stood for racism and revolution. Sadly since they changed the way they talk many decent people have given their support in the last 40 years. They are socialists. They don't care about minorities. They are using minorities for votes to gain power. And if they ever get the power they seek they will discard them. I'm not saying their aren't racist Republicans, or independents, etc., but it is social engineering and brain-washing that has led young people to think the Democratic Party is anything different than they've been for the last 200+ years.

 

[Lightbringer]

It did not; It changed it's talk to a more palatable speech. It's like Lyndon B. Johnson said when he was passing his Great Society laws: "This'll have n****** voting Democrat for 200 years." Democratic polices in the 60s and beyond have done terrible damage to African Americans. Their goal was to keep them poor and keep them dependent on the government. Even now we're seeing the shift where they are convincing people that segregation is good again; as long as it's African Americans making the decision. The liberal media continues to portray them negatively, and has been trying to stir up race conflict; which never works well for minorities. The Democratic party has always stood for racism and revolution. Sadly since they changed the way they talk many decent people have given their support in the last 40 years. They are socialists. They don't care about minorities. They are using minorities for votes to gain power. And if they ever get the power they seek they will discard them. I'm not saying their aren't racist Republicans, or independents, etc., but it is social engineering and brain-washing that has led young people to think the Democratic Party is anything different than they've been for the last 200+ years.

So the "Civil Rights Act" was bad?

So conservative media doesn't portray blacks in a negative way?

So under Democratic presidents, black families’ incomes didn't grow on average by $895 dollars annually in contrast to growing only $142 dollars under Republicans?

So black unemployment rate didn't fall by a net 7.9 percentage points across the 26 years of Democratic leadership as opposed to going up by a net of 13.7 points during 28 years of Republican presidencies?

So Democrats aren't fighting for DACA?

 

[Multiply]

Nah, you just buy into propaganda. I'm not going to argue alternative facts with you. Ain't gonna waste my breath on you.

How did I buy into propaganda?

Historical experts and credible sources>>>>>You and breitbart affiliates.

You literally used sources that were not factual to your point. You have been trying to dodge that fact for the last 3 posts. Also, what do I have to do with breitbart affiliates other than posting their videos and using the video Professor's arguments against you?

Others have already completely debunked the video you made the thread about in great detail:

Spoiler

As I made my periodic excavation tunneling down through my junk mail folder, I noticed the following subject line: “Prager U goes viral: over 6 million views in one week!”

Curious to see how high on the B.S. meter this Prager U clip would register, I decided to click on it. As usual, it didn’t disappoint.

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their right to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’squote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era, those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to a political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.


“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist



“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwáter, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Please let no person, entity, or ideology, rob you of your intellect, rationale, and the conquest to always question.

I'm confused... Where is the party switch? Out of all of this debunking, nothing was mentioned of the party switch we just exchanged posts about. Did you get so caught up in trying to debunk this video that you forgot the point we were arguing? I never made the case that this video was absolute fact. However, you put out some bullshit claim about there being a party switch in the 40's due to the new deal and your only source of evidence came from a bachelors level physicist(Your other two sources disagreed with you).

Not to mention that the only part this unnamed person debunked was her rhetoric on the 1964 vote. On Everything else they stated:

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate.

So... Congratulations. You played yourself.

You keep living in your alternative universe, and stay irate brate.

You must be registered for see images

Yikes.

None but republicans are taking net neutrality so they are my enemies.

True indeed.

 

[Lightbringer]

How did I buy into propaganda?



You literally used sources that were not factual to your point. You have been trying to dodge that fact for the last 3 posts. Also, what do I have to do with breitbart affiliates other than posting their videos and using the video Professor's arguments against you?



I'm confused... Where is the party switch? Out of all of this debunking, nothing was mentioned of the party switch we just exchanged posts about. Did you get so caught up in trying to debunk this video that you forgot the point we were arguing? I never made the case that this video was absolute fact. However, you put out some bullshit claim about there being a party switch in the 40's due to the new deal and your only source of evidence came from a bachelors level physicist(Your other two sources disagreed with you).

Not to mention that the only part this unnamed person debunked was her rhetoric on the 1964 vote. On Everything else they stated:



So... Congratulations. You played yourself.




Yikes.



True indeed.

lel, the illiteracy is strong with this one.

You must be registered for see images

 

[kimb]

Stop beefing over establishment politics. There's no point.

 

[Multiply]

lel, the illiteracy is strong with this one.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Can't defend your arguments so you descend to dreckerplayer's intelligence level. Ain't that some shit.

Stop beefing over establishment politics. There's no point.

No beef. Just presenting opposing arguments and playing devil's advocate.

 

[Callypigia]

So the "Civil Rights Act" was bad?

So conservative media doesn't portray blacks in a negative way?

So under Democratic presidents, black families’ incomes didn't grow on average by $895 dollars annually in contrast to growing only $142 dollars under Republicans?

So black unemployment rate didn't fall by a net 7.9 percentage points across the 26 years of Democratic leadership as opposed to going up by a net of 13.7 points during 28 years of Republican presidencies?

So Democrats aren't fighting for DACA?

US Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only passed because of Republicans. It was Democrats who attempted to filibuster the bill. Strom Thurmond equated it to Reconstruction actions by "a radical Republican Congress." In the House it was voted on 152-96 Democrats and 138-34 Republicans; a 61% Democrat and 80% Republican vote. Then again during the Voting Right Act of 1965 Republicans had 82% in favor, while Democrats had 78% (The Senate had 94% Republican support, Democrats 73%).

Unemployment for African Americans is at all time low under a Republican majority; down to 6.8 percent, which is the lowest rate since 1972. The overall job market has a 4.1 unemployment rate, which is incredibly low. Increased government regulation on private business hurts small organizations, and encourages larger companies to utilize overseas work. Repealing previous executive orders has increased trust for large and small business, bringing back industry to the country. Illegal immigration has also decreased, allowing more skilled and un-skilled labor jobs to be taken by US citizens (it's easier to undercut your competition when you aren't paying taxes).

DACA has nothing to do with helping African Americans or any minority outside of DACA-eligible immigrants; it's all about increasing votes. Civil Rights commissioner, Peter Kirsanow, stated that "black males are more likely to experience competition from illegal immigrants." US Civil Rights study in 2010 determined illegal immigration had a disproportionate impact on black Americans, including employment rates and depressed wage levels. DACA does show to help improve poverty levels of unauthorized immigrant households.

There isn't very much Conservative media. Outside of The Daily Stormer and Breitbart, I haven't noticed much racism. I'm not denying there is bias against blacks on Fox, but I don't watch enough to notice any trends. There's zero racism coming from people like Ben Shaprio and his site, The Dailywire. Most of the site I follow are Libertarian-based, and many run by African American and Latino administrators.

So in short you have not convinced me that the Democratic party cares about minorities. They are just using them to increase their voter base. They utilize that sneaky covert racism (i.e., Voter IDs are racist - implying minorities are too dumb to go to a DMV., affirmative action - African Americans are incapable of finding employment without my help in 2018). I'm not saying you are, but don't just blindly follow your political party. You may be better suited as a Libertarian.

 

[ArabianLuffy]

Take everything that have been said into consideration and search what's true and not. So what? Democrats are evil and Republicans are good? Whether this idea is true or not, it belongs to that century. That specific era and time where colored people and wives were presumed to be treated as 2nd grade citizens. Even if the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment have been removed from the U.S. constitution it's going to be an international affair for colored people being stripped from their rights. It would be no longer about colored people in America. It will mean to everyone around the world and the world won't let the United States do as they please in this 21st century.

Racism shouldn't continue as we speak. It serves nothing but pain and misery.

 

[Lightbringer]

US Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only passed because of Republicans. It was Democrats who attempted to filibuster the bill. Strom Thurmond equated it to Reconstruction actions by "a radical Republican Congress." In the House it was voted on 152-96 Democrats and 138-34 Republicans; a 61% Democrat and 80% Republican vote. Then again during the Voting Right Act of 1965 Republicans had 82% in favor, while Democrats had 78% (The Senate had 94% Republican support, Democrats 73%).

The Civil Rights Act was a Democratic Bill....

Democrats still voted in larger proportion than Republicans....

Notice how it wasn't simply a Democrat vs Republican vote, but rather a North vs South vote for the bill.

Here is the original tally for the bill.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)



The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era, those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Unemployment for African Americans is at all time low under a Republican majority; down to 6.8 percent, which is the lowest rate since 1972. The overall job market has a 4.1 unemployment rate, which is incredibly low. Increased government regulation on private business hurts small organizations, and encourages larger companies to utilize overseas work. Repealing previous executive orders has increased trust for large and small business, bringing back industry to the country. Illegal immigration has also decreased, allowing more skilled and un-skilled labor jobs to be taken by US citizens (it's easier to undercut your competition when you aren't paying taxes).

Are you referring to the Trump administration? From January to December 2017, the unemployment rate among black Americans fell 1 percentage point. During the same period in 2016, it fell the same amount. In 2015, it fell 1.9 points. The previous year, it fell 1.5 points. The year before that, it fell 1.8 points. He's taking credit for a trend that he had no hand in.

Again, Black unemployment rate fell by a net 7.9 percentage points across the 26 years of Democratic leadership while going up by a net of 13.7 points during 28 years of Republican presidencies.

Also under Democratic presidents, black families’ incomes grew on average by $895 dollars annually, but grew only $142 dollars under Republicans. Those are the recorded facts.

DACA has nothing to do with helping African Americans or any minority outside of DACA-eligible immigrants; it's all about increasing votes. Civil Rights commissioner, Peter Kirsanow, stated that "black males are more likely to experience competition from illegal immigrants." US Civil Rights study in 2010 determined illegal immigration had a disproportionate impact on black Americans, including employment rates and depressed wage levels. DACA does show to help improve poverty levels of unauthorized immigrant households.

I'd like to see those statistics, but that's not what you said in the first place. You argued that the Democrats didn't represent minorities. You're referring to an economic issue, not a social one here. Even if what you said is true, as a social rights matter, Democrats are still doing more for minorities than Republicans.

There isn't very much Conservative media. Outside of The Daily Stormer and Breitbart, I haven't noticed much racism. I'm not denying there is bias against blacks on Fox, but I don't watch enough to notice any trends. There's zero racism coming from people like Ben Shaprio and his site, The Dailywire. Most of the site I follow are Libertarian-based, and many run by African American and Latino administrators.

Racism isn't simply calling people the N-word; racism can be subtle. When it comes to Ben Shapiro, he stereotypes black people in a way that is a misrepresentation of the reality. He denies any sort of systematic discrimination, paints them as lazy and inactive, how violent they are, etc.

The Dailywire skews the truth with cherry picked data. An example would in their piece in an attempt to smear African Americans as violent, they give the statistic that 90% of Blacks are killed by blacks, and leave out the fact that all demographics share similar statistics. Most white are killed by whites, etc.

Another example was when the Dailywire made a video about how heroic Columbus and tried to "set the record straight" about the Native Americans and Columbus day. It was so overtly racist that Dailywire was forced to pull the video.

You must be registered for see links

So even though the racism isn't as open and blunt as directly calling them the "N," intentionally painting a false picture of African Americans is racism. Even top officials in the Nixon administration addressed how the racist language shifted from being openly racist to dog whistles as a way to deny contextualized racism if called out on it.

Either way, the point was the Conservative media is still racist which you already admitted to. So saying that only Liberal media is racist is untrue.

So in short you have not convinced me that the Democratic party cares about minorities. They are just using them to increase their voter base. They utilize that sneaky covert racism (i.e., Voter IDs are racist - implying minorities are too dumb to go to a DMV., affirmative action - African Americans are incapable of finding employment without my help in 2018). I'm not saying you are, but don't just blindly follow your political party. You may be better suited as a Libertarian.

I doubt I'll convince you no matter what. You're firmly committed to your mindset and it's only up to you to change by setting your personal bias aside.

I'm just hear to set the record straight because what you said was just not true. Whether it changes your opinion or not is not my intention.