Unironic question. Who is the most ¨racist¨ party? Democrats or Republicans?

Pic related. He was pretty known for saying stuff like that.

snopes.com/lbj-voting-democratic/ according to this its says quote was prolly fake. But it also states that he did say nigger alot though

It's like Trump saying "shithole countries". I mean sure, we don't have him on tape saying it, but come on, we all know that's exactly the kind of thing he would say.

The fucking people who browse this board, christ.

The party who didn't think a black president could possibly be born in America

Considering the Democrats' willingness to exploit illegal immigrants and keep minorities voting them despite not bettering their lot I'd say the Democrats are the more racist one.

youtu.be/r1rIDmDWSms

democrats are currently more obsessed with race

>Who is the most ¨racist¨ party?

The loaded question seems to imply that one or both parties are racist anyway and it's only a question of "how" racist they are.
I personally doubt the parties themselves can be considered racists as a whole (after the 60s) since this is against their interests and this is true for most mainstream parties in the Western world. Sure they may have had individual closed racists but Racism is The Great Evil thing in American consciousness. Then again I'm not American so I could be wrong.

Republican party was founded by Lincoln to fight slavery and is the more recently created party. The Democratic party has been around longer, and traditionally has been associated with conservatism and anti-black rights.

As of the civil rights movement (and partially during FDR's presidency), the conservative base had changed party affiliation. Conservatives were once Democrats, after the civil rights act they became Republican.
Some conservative democrats still exist in the south, often called "blue dog democrats". But they're widely believed to be a product of a bygone era.

In fact, Rick Perry, the former governor or Texas and current secretary of energy under Trump started his career as a Democrat. Now he's as Republican as you can get it would seem. People often change party affiliation over time depending on whatever ideology is in style at the time. Of course individuals are racist, not parties.
For all of history it has been democrats who were more racist. Today it's republicans.

those who are outspoken against trump seem really racist in my eyes.

democrats are the real racists

It wasn’t a swap so much as the parties were transformed from being along regional to ideological lines. There were liberal and conservative wings in both parties for much of their history.

the big switch was in the 50-70's you can trace it directly with the break up of the southern democratic block.

The Southern Strategy was pretty explicitly racist. Or at least by using it Republicans showed a lack of concern with whether they were getting votes by tailoring their policy to entice racists, which is arguably no less terrible.

>le great switch maymay

A guy from Georgia momentarily won back the solid south? Who would’ve thought?

>it doesn't count because the candidate was a southerner

>hurrr don’t you see Billy Bob Clinton and Jimmy from Georgia won southern states so durr Lee Atwater’s entire political strategy was just liberal make believe
Absolutely ebin.

>Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger.
Very clever of him, but I wonder the effectiveness of this tactic in the 60s

>the South is Republican and the North is Democrat which is why Clinton and Carter won the Republican primaries and won the South in the elections
>implying anyone said anything about liberals and conservatives

>It is true that the modern Republican party is at it's core based around racism

>what do you mean running candidates with regional appeal has been an election tactic in the US for its entire history
>I thought people pick the president because of policy

If we're talking modern day it honestly depends on a per person basis, but the right wing populism that's sprung up recently has shifted the overton window far enough that most mainstream Republicans have to kind of reluctantly support it in order to keep in line with the administration (see all of the "never-trumpers" suddenly supplicating to legislation they normally never would).

So why were Southerners winning Democratic primaries?
Muh split maymay didn't actually manifest until Bush Jr.

>quoted by an Air Force One steward

The hilarious irony is that there are people who will decry that quote as illegitimate while accepting the testimony of unnamed sources or hedge rows on the most outlandish of Trump claims.

Democrats. Even today, through exploiting the minority groups and treating them as victims unable to help themselves, they are still the most racist party.

Democrat: Dixiecrat slave owners.
Democrat: Segregationists.
Democrat: Jim Crow laws.
Democrat: KKK
Democrat: Killed the 1953 GOP Civil Rights Act
Democrat: Filibustered the 1964 GOP Civil Rights Act

Republicans: Fought to free the slaves.

You tell me.

*1957

Democrats, republicans freed the slaves

Adding to that, the Civil War was not the North v the South, but Demorats in the North and South against the Union.

>wants to import spics literally purely for votes
>wants illegal immigrants to have amnesty literally only for votes
>panders to minorities literally only for votes
>democrat run cities are corrupt shitholes full of crime and poverty

Blacks under democrat rule in cities lead fairly similar lives to blacks under democrat rule in the antebellum south. Maybe even worse, as their family structure has been annihilated.

>last thing he can quote is 1964 which is exactly when people argue the shift happened which proves the point of the people you’re arguing with

Good job cletus

This is actually a very good point. Things like Knights of the Golden Circle originated in Cincinnati Ohio for example.

>running candidates with regional appeal has been an election tactic in the US for its entire history
[citation needed]

Bullshit. The blacks in the south voted Republican when they were freed, and then in the early 1900's, when the New Deal was out, they switched to Demorats for the Gibsmedat party.

Similarly, the Dixiecrats in the south switched to Republican in the 50's, when prosperity following WWII made low taxation and limited government appealing to white working people.

The demorat party has always been an evil bucket of diseased shit.

>Dixiecrats in the south switched to Republican in the 50's
"No."

Did they fucking switch or not?

Ideologically no.

European here, goddamn Lyndon was a redneck.

>but currently Republicans.
False

>what are black voters who occasionally turn out en masse and overwhelm low white voter turn out
iirc black people liked carter

the idiot means 68

>>wants to import spics literally purely for votes
reagan gave huge amnesty to hispanics, idiot.

dixies were literally gibsmedat because the New Deal gave massive funds to develop the South

Fake, discredited quote

Are you referring to the disastrous Reconstruction?

Holy shit the Veeky Forums level is low.

i'm talking about the new deal retard and why "southern democrats" were a thing in the early 20th century

Now, there was, the swap that they talk about did not take place. But there was a different swap that did take place that has nothing to do with race. So for example the swap that did not take place, if you look at the Dixiecrats, we make a list of them, it’s a pretty big list, Strom Thurmond is the only one who moved over to the Republican Party. So this is a case hinging on one guy. Uh, the rest of the Dixiecrats, they were happy to be Democrats. They went right back into the Democratic party. They were lionized by the Democrats ‘till the day they died. A good example of this is Robert Byrd, former member of the Ku Klux Klan.

--D'Souza

More Appalachia than the South.

yeah, because the blacks switched to the gibsmedats.....are you capable of following letters into words into thoughts into threads?

Do you think they just simultaneously decided the other side was right?

It wasn't a switch, the south just straight up left the democratic party.

>Some conservative democrats still exist in the south, often called "blue dog democrats". But they're widely believed to be a product of a bygone era.
I always thought that was more of "we can't win in the south unless we put forth democratic candidates that are basically republicans in all but name"

The democrats are better at hiding their racism, except when it's towards white people.

Underneath the ideological signalling there is really no difference between these two corrupt political organisations. So this question is really irrelevant.

unironically democrats.

And no, not because muh 1950s, I'm talking about right now, them supporting affirmative action for federal hiring, universities, private companies, etc (basically: if you're black or a woman, all other things equal, you are preferred to white men. Nope, doesn't matter if you're a rich privileged black or a poor white).

TJHSST, the #1 most prestigious and intellectual public high school in the United States, used to be 80% asian males, because they would do best on the comprehensive admissions process (test scores, sports, clubs, instruments, income level, everything). Affirmative action gets introduced, nowadays 70% of those would-be Asian male attendees are denied entry to people who scored worse BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. You tell me that's not racist and I'll fuckign shoot up your school.

youtube.com/watch?v=THEJvTeoicg

Yes all credible historians agree there was an eventual transition of the states rights conservatives to the republican party and the strong federal government people left the republican party because the moderate liberal policies became seen as the far left despite their roots during the Wilson, FDR, and Truman presidencies. People want to argue otherwise and handwave it away with anomolous election results just because voting strictly along party lines is a recent thing but a switch did indeed happen. If you analyze the politics of notorious individuals based on ideology rather than party affiliation it is blatantly obvious.

>Promoting diversity = racism

Are you tired from all those mental gymnastics?

diversity is racism you stupid fucking faggot. Having slots open for a certain amount of people of certain races is the definition of racism because it assumes black people are too retarded to get into a position based off of their own merit

it's time to end the collective delusion that racism is a party matter. Rather, racists are their own significant demographic, and any party with them in it then becomes racist. In a way most of the USA's own political issues are just a cover for racists vs non-racists, which are the real two parties.

Dude, even though this kind of shit does lead to ironic exclusivity, it's not because the decision makers are being prejudiced, it's because they're trying not to be. Calling that kind of behavior "racist" is both stupidly reductive and sounds a whole lot like dogwhistling.

Affirmative action largely exists to benefit white people. When California revoked affirmative action definitively in 1996 at the governmental level, what happened in universities was that there were moderately more Hispanics, a lot more Asians, and WAAAAAY fewer whites.

Currently? The democrats.

>Having slots open for a certain amount of people of certain races is the definition of racism because it assumes black people are too retarded to get into a position based off of their own merit

>I'm not racist, THEY'RE racist!

It does not assume that. It understands that nepotism, underfunded education systems in predominantly black areas, and lack of resources for black kids with college prospects are indeed things that happen and it is trying to combat them. The one assumption it does take is that all students benefit from exposure to a diverse variety of cultures.

I'm not in school but do you want to tell you where my highschool is so you can go shoot it up?

I'm racist as fuck and I am aware black people are inferior to whites, that doesn't change that affirmative action is racist in nature.

"I'm racist as fuck and I am aware black people are inferior to whites"

Ahahahahahaha-*cough**cough*

You don't deserve a (You) OR proper Veeky Forums response formatting.

Reagan also banned some guns. Reagan wasn’t the best example of ideal republican, in actuality

What IS an ideal republican, though? Based on recent elections, it just seems to be "follows the Southern Strategy".

Reagan made it cool to bash liberals
>What IS an ideal republican, though?
Somebody who gives conservatives the best liberal-bashing memes. He can be someone moderate policy-wise, most conservatives don't pay enough attention to notice, he just has to look good on television while waging ideological battles over symbolic issues.

If it sounds petty and trite, it is.

>Reagan made it cool to bash liberals
I thought that was Nixon.

Nixon was a transitional figure. He was from the old school that hated hippies and communists, and didn't just lump them all together under the umbrella term "liberal" and just bash that one thing relentlessly

Forced diversity IS racist, you mong.

You already said that.

To be fair, the vast majority of voters pretty much ignore policies when they decide who to vote for.

Well it used to be the Democrats up until the 1960s, then they switched sides and it's been the Republicans ever since.

Who are you referring to?

False

I guess (You)'ll never find out.

I’m I am not

You think I care? Reverse racism accusations are the real prejudice here. Forced diversity is just a sad extreme people do when they can't think of any better ideas, and that's all too human IMO to be something worth condemnation.

I doubted this when I was a kid, but upon growing up and seeing the country, the average person is a literal moron. If anecdotal experience wasn't enough to assure me of that, like maybe I just always happened to encounter morons, then statistics don't lie:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography_2.html
29% of Americans cannot find the Pacific ocean on a map. Half could not find New York State on a map of the United States. Only two-thirds could indicate which way northwest is on a map. Literally 2/3s don't even know which way UP is on a map.

Friendly reminder that 1 in 5 Americans coming fresh out of high school cannot find the Pacific Ocean, the single largest geographical feature on earth, covering nearly one-third of the planet, on a map. The same fraction graduated high school and yet cannot read above a third grade level.

>I don't want to be around niggers and it makes you a racist to force that on me

Oh lawdy.

it actually blows my mind how you can be this retarded. If you killed yourself the world would be a better place.

>respond to a callout with death threats
Smooth.

And I lived in Texas, where it's not that bad. It's far worse in other areas of the country. Levels of functionally illiteracy (bar among newly-arrived immigrants, who of course don't speak English very well) are highest in Appalachia. There 30% of adults are functionally illiterate. As in, one in every three people you see walking down the street is unable to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level. The average Appalachian (an area of thirty million people altogether) is three times as likely to be functionally illiterate as to hold any kind of college degree. How exactly do you govern them as part of a first world country?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_economic_stratification_in_Appalachia#Educational_disadvantages

It really doesn't matter, they both have racist, and pointing out a racist of one group doesn't validate the other group. I don't care how centrist it sounds, I just think they're both racist in certain ways.