Any truth to the claim that the democrats have always been the party of racism

Any truth to the claim that the democrats have always been the party of racism

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#.22Southern_Strategy.22
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza
thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No, things change.

No. They changed. The problem is that they claim the Republicans also change and "became the racist"

It is the classic leftist bait and switch

After Nazis lost WW2, Commies of Europe rewrote history as well and said "the Nazi's were right wing". Today, everyone believes that.

Does not make it true. Democrats changed, but the same people who were in charge of the Democrat party then, are in charge of the Democrat party today. Al Gore's father filibustered the Civil Rights Act, Al Gore has repented. Meanwhile the Republicans have remained consistent. Liberty for all.

intradesting
I'm not OP but what is your opinion on the whole "Goldwater shift"?
it seems like such a massive political overturn that happened very quickly across demographics. But the only evidence I hear is about the Dixiecrats which were far too small to account for such a shift.
IDK, I'm drunk, you're offering answers, let's see where this goes

It's true... It's all true.

Voting base matters more than lineage of the party leaders.

It's a myth,. The dixiecrats died Democrats. The shift was happening gradually for decades long before the Civil Rights Act and Barry Goldwater

Research the trends.

Blacks started becoming Democrats following the New Deal, and the south started becoming Republicans following businesses moving to the south. There is no point in time where the south suddenly flipped and started voting Republican over Democrat, it was a slow shift.

Just ask a retarded liberal to define you the year this supposed "shift" happened. It's such a stupid narrative, it only works when spoken quickly.

I recommend watching Cenk & Dinesh's debate, they go over this topic and it's good to see the contrast of both sides, and how shallow the leftist side really is.

Point is that the racist Democrats remained racist Democrats and the descendants of those racist Democrats are the people in charge of the party today. The switch shit is just that, shit

What.

Are you a libertarian or what?

wasn't aware of the New Deal aspect of it.
I'll have to check it out, thanks

It's unfortunate the dialog tends to be "No the Democrats are the real racist" or "Nuh uh, they became Republicans"
Few people ever approach it pragmatically

>He thinks Hitler wasn't a democrat leftist

Before the republicans took it over, it was impossible to find KKK members who weren't Democrats.

Horseshoe political science

>You see Hitler was a Democrat SJW slave owner who killed all the Christians but then Jesus, who was a Republican of course, came down and smote him and so Hitler changed his name to Hillary and now Hillary wants to enslave the black people again with basic Social Welfare

>all the racist shit that democrats said about mexicans when trump wanted the wall
I can believe spics heard all that and still voted dem

Is he a total idiot? or does he brand his stuff to appeal to retards that eat up pop-conservatism garbage.

The Democrats, driven especially by Southern Democrats, were the party of racism up until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s restructured the two parties. The Southern democrats slowly migrated over to the Republican party over the next few decades - in fact, the Republicans used coded messaging to appeal to Southern racists. It was called the Southern strategy, and here's RNC chairman, strategist, and Republican presidential adviser Lee Atwater describing it:

youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

Using a racial slur while wondering why the Latino community didn't vote for Trump pretty much perfectly describes his base.

>the Latino community didn't vote for Trump
lots of them did, surprisingly.

Hold on try again you're almost there but not insufferable enough. Try one more time maybe you'll get it right.

Dinesh is an amazing counter-argument for the stereotype that Indian people are smart.

I genuinely think he's just that stupid.

>Latino community didn't vote for Trump
He had the highest Latino vote out of any Republican president.

>MUH ELECTORATES SWITCHED OVER RACE
"No".

We'll see how that goes in 2020.

That was the map until Reagan. And after Civil Rights Act only one Democrat changed the party.

Majority of them voted Hillary

>all these ad hominems
>not a single argument in sight
Woah... Is this the power of leftism?

Why is the Republican party called the "Grand Old Party" when the Democratic party is older? Serious question.

t. Dinesh

They switched places in the 60s. The narrative that they didn't is a retarded right wing talking point.

Fucking RETARD RIGHT WINGERS.

>Voting base
1. Republican policies benefit rural folk and rural folk happen to be white, it's not on racial bias and for some unrelated reasons most shitskins live in cities.
2. You have 2 go back bitch
>muh gradual party switch
>muh Lee Atwater
That Atwater shit is taken out of context and Republicans haven't repealed any of the civil rights acts even when they had a trifecta with Bush II or right now with Trump or ever. Republicans are faggots. Bill Clinton really did a number on niggers with the 1994 crime bill and gutting welfare and Jimmy Carter posthumously restored Jefferson Davis' US citizenship in 1978.
>But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
>The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference. And I'll tell you another thing you all need to think about, that even surprised me, is the lack of interest, really, the lack of knowledge right now in the South among white voters about the Voting Rights Act.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#.22Southern_Strategy.22
Republicucks jewed white trash into voting for them without actually doing anything racist, whoopee. Reason was cause since the New Deal Republicans were a hopeless minority except for a couple brief occasions.

>Reagan

Trump only got more % of minorities because of less turnout and third parties leeching from dems. He didn't actually increase the vote from Romney.

See his point about the parties switching narrative being bullshit seems to be true but then he adds on bullshit of his own.

not an argument

He got 28% while Hillary got around 66.

McCain actually had the highest Latino vote at 31%.

>Republican policies benefit rural folk and rural folk happen to be white, it's not on racial bias
I wouldn't say benefit. You would have to open up another debate about efficacy of political ideas but rural people are definitely slanted towards the ideas of republicans.

If you compare % of voters you have to include how much turnout there was.

Dinesh, I didn't know you browsed Veeky Forums?

t. niggers

...

Who the fuck is Dinsesh

go to reddit if u can't handle name calling

Because yours are so original perhaps? Go eat a nigger dick, faggot.

Stop making shit up please. The entire fucking country voted for Reagan.

Indian American political commentator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D'Souza

>gets laughed at for being a idiot
why aren't these lefties debating me?!?

Why are you so obsessed with negro anatomy, user?

Yes.

Yeah this is the election before Reagan. Very good.

>Any truth to the claim that the democrats have always been the party of racism

No.

thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

top kek

This.
>well I'm not racist anymore, but people still oppose me, which means THEY must be the racists now
Liberals are literally children.

Yeah, but it shows the Democratic pussy whip over minorities (except blacks) is failing.

>stereotype that Indian people are smart
Indian people have a stereotype of being stupid stinky street shitters.

>le right wing is small government and freedumbs

The Democrats and republicans basically switched bases in the 50's. The Democrats used to be the most popular party in the south, they used to be the conservative party, catering mostly to the white lower class. The republican party used to be the progressive pluralistic party. Don't know how this happend excactly, but you can look it up, there's plenty of YouTube video's explaining it.
You can think of the current democratic and republican party what you like, but this is historic fact.

Why are you so scared of people saying nazi's are right wing? Are you afraid people might hear you're right wing amd think you're a nazi? Are you that insecure?

>Left-wing
Big government
Statists
Collectivists (identity politics, bases people on their class or skin color)
End goal is socialism/communism
Political correctness
Anti-gun ownership
Anti-freedom of speech
Anti-family (the state replaces the family)
Atheist (the state is god)
Considers man an animal (the individual is not important)
French Revolution & Bolshevik Revolution
Abortion, feminism and all sorts of degeneracy
Feelings > facts

>Right-wing
Small government
Individuality (bases people on their character and beliefs)
Free market capitalism
Private property
Gun ownership (protecting family and property)
Biblical worldview
Conservative values
Freedom of speech
Christian morals and ethics
Family nucleus (the family is the building block of a nation)
Considers man made in the image of God (the individual is of utmost importance)
American Revolution
Manhood, masculinity and fatherhood
Facts > feelings

Leftists are the real racists.

>National Socialism
>Socialism
>not a left-wing (shitty) economic model

Thank you based radical Islam inabler.

>Communism fails in theory and practice
>History shows time and time again that it doesn't work
>Hundreds of books written by economists explaining why communism fails

>stupid millenials in the year 2017 still fall for the marxism meme
There's stupid, and then there's being a commie.

Looking at /pol/, I don't think so

>pretending Nazi Germany was anything but private enterprise put into the form of a state

B R A V O

R

A

V

O

By that logic North Korea is democratic.

The best argument you can give is that it was a mixed economy, hitler had no problem with private property and alongside jews and gays he also imprisoned/killed socialists.

Yes, all the Democrats decided they liked what the Republicans were doing and coincidentally at the same time all the Republicans decided the Democrats were right

>private enterprise put into the form of a state

The "socialist" aspect of National Socialism was practically eliminated by Hitler when he took full control over the party after 1933. National Socialism died with Gregor Strasser. Hitler betrayed the Party's founding principles and ideals and sold out to the military aristocracy and industrialists.

>After Nazis lost WW2, Commies of Europe rewrote history as well and said "the Nazi's were right wing".
>completely ignoring how the nazis treated communists

I think I got an aneurysm from that. The state is a right-wing institution, always been that way. Identity politics and racial collectivism are also right-wing.

I've started to believe that left vs right vs center in the context of America doesn't map onto any stable ideological/economic/social beliefs.

What I mean is that with the correct media coverage Trump supporters could be convinced to support a Trump 2020 campaign platform of state ownership of farms, leftists could be convinced to support banning abortion, and centrists could be convinced to support concentration camps for immigrants. (On this view, centrists are their own distinct group that value the identity of being Reasonable Centrists (tm) ).

I see some of this in other Western democracies but it's not as pronounced because there can be dozens of parties and so there is an incentive to have concern for individual policies as your small party can influence law when the voting gets close.

Not really. Democrats back then were the party of small government and states rights. It is the opposite now. Change happened during the 60s. Read about neoconservatism for a better understanding of why it happened but it shored up the conservatives for a long string of election success in the 70s and 80s. Though the term has lost much of its meaning, neoconservative movement is meant to be contrasted with the neoliberal movement and the string of liberal election success during the early-mid 20th century. The terms loosely define political epochs in 20th century American politics.

>Identity politics and racial collectivism are also right-wing.
yeah those panthers and bla faggots that you leftyderps worship were ultra right wing.

>haven't repealed civil rights acts
>blatantly ignoring voter registration debates

Because I'm sure politically they'd get far with "take the right to vote away from niggers." Not like there's any justification in doing it subversively.

People who spout the "party switch" meme don't understand American politics or why the voting landscape shifted.

The reality is that there was never a major change between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republican Party has always been the party of the industrialists while the Democratic Party has been for the working class. Back in the 1860s, the industrialists opposed slavery because it competed against their factory-based production. Democrats were supported in the South because the economy down there, even for the poor working man, depended on slavery, and poor white hicks needed a slavery caste system to make themselves not the bottom of the barrel there.

The only difference today is that the Republican Party adopted more religious politics but they are still the party of business. They used religion to convince southerners to vote for them.

Neither of them have been for the working class.
And nowadays the dems have their armies of minorities to fight for them.

People say a switch happened because the means to the ends of each party changed, not because their voting base had a change of heart overnight. Democrats are the force of large government, unions, and social-leaning institutions. Republicans are the force of small government, laissez-faire economics, and letting the private sector solve issues. This wasn't the case 70, 80, 90... years ago.

>Democrats then
>fight to import hordes of cheap brown labor

>Democrats now
>fight to imports hordes of cheap brown labor

Pretty much.

>only difference today is
That Democrats now think helping the working class means grouping all nonwhites into a single bloc and scapegoating white people to them.

Even 70, 80, 90 years ago the Republican Party was not the trust-busting party the Democrats were. Remember that Republicans ruled throughout the 20s when laissez-faire flourished.

>Democrats back then were the party of small government and states rights. It is the opposite now. Change happened during the 60s.
>FDR, President who expanded Federal and Executive power more than anyone, elected as a Democrat in the 1930's
Tell me anons, how does this myth persist when its so obviously retarded and false?
Yes Dems have always been the party of racism, but deeper than that, they have always been the party of getting votes by playing to their voters egos as "superior." Back then they used racial superiority, now they use moral superiority, and it looks like they'll be going with racial superiority in the future except whites will be inferior this time.

>what is nationalism
>muh western identity
Yeah, all those identarian faggots are left wing as fuck

>After Nazis lost WW2, Commies of Europe rewrote history as well and said "the Nazi's were right wing

this is the most idiotic shit I've read on Veeky Forums all day

no /pol/ bias here, no sirree

The shift started slowly during the neoliberalism movement, something you would have read had you read the entirety of my post. It was mostly at tidal volume by the end of the 60s. Continued to fruition with Reagan. FDR was also unlike any democrat before him and the success of his policies and his character we're a big step in the rejiggering of political positions of the parties. Looking forward to the next quote you'll take out of context.

> when laissez-faire flourished

And then crashed because the Republicans refused to impose any regulation on an overheating and speculative market.

Modern Republicans have no ideology, they agree with whatever the party leadership and the conservative media pumps into their non existent brains.

>they agree with whatever the party leadership and the conservative media pumps into their non existent brains.
I remember when Trump wasn't nominated too.

>>
>And then crashed because the Republicans refused to impose any regulation on an overheating and speculative market.
FUCKING WRONG. SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU ARE WRONG. GO READ A FUCKING BOOK. DON'T EVER TALK ON THIS TOPIC AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FUCKING WRONG. WROOOOONG.

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Twas the Fed's fault

i don't see a single argument here

Are you stupid or baiting in trying to argue that democrats weren't historically the part of states rights and small government? FDR and Wilson both being the exceptions (and often as milestones for historians to mark this political evolution) doesn't change 100 years of precedent. FFS the party was founded by supporters of one of the most conservative presidents in history.

>two fed members that chafed and disagreed with the president they served under blamed the president for everything bad

Fucking color me surprised. Why don't you link the entire bullshit article so we can read about the staunchly conservative economists who published the paper arguing that FDR's policies worsened the depression with an economic model they created assuming THE DEPRESSION NEVER HAPPENED. A lot of good hypothetical figures for wage growth and employment do when they are ignoring the reality FDR inherited.

>Democrats are the real racists!!11
>Nazis were socialists!!!1

Go back to /r/TheDonald

Trump is the best example that shows that modern Republicans have no ideology, but instead supports whatever their party tells them to.

Republicans were all about not bombing Assad, until Trump bombed Assad.

Republicans were against Putin and his militancy in Europe, until the RNC and Russia became butt buddies.

Republicans were all about politicians being morally upstanding, until the nominated a morally bankrupt candidate, then they stopped caring about the moral character of politicians

Republicans believed in American high ed, then Fox News told them not to

Republicans were all about Free Trade, then they became against free trade

Republicans used to ambivalent about gun control, then a black man became president

>da fuks nus

>Trump is the best example that shows that modern Republicans have no ideology, but instead supports whatever their party tells them to.
Except the Republican leaders and media didn't want him nominated you retard.

Aren't Democrats the same?
>ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ, NO MORE WARS, BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL
>but Gaddafi and Assad need to be deposed cuz they're evil and hate freedumz

Shh don't call him out on that, go easy on him, he's from r/politics.