Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the entire article. Twice. Other than election results and some anecdotal quotes referring to the bipartisan process called gerrymandering (which both parties do, with relish, whenever they hold the majority and want to protect incumbency), there is no set of facts, no legsilative pattern, no written/debated/passed laws, nor national committee level evidence that would suffice as evidence in any sort of real deabte.
The central premise is that Southern Dixiecrats were Jim Crow racists who voted against the Civil Rights Act, and then all switched their party when King JFK the Benevolent began pushing for civil rights, thus, the 2014 GOP is racist. I'd call it a poorly formed, incorrect conclusion, but even that is too generous as the word "conclusion" implies some sort of logic processwas involved, which is certainly not the case here.
It's a garden variety liberal axe grind. GOP = racist because Nixon/Wallace/Goldwater/Southern Strategy/Reagan_welfare_queen/Tea Party/Duke lacrosse/whatever.
I go back to which policy, specifically designed, written and enacted into law to purposefully hurt black people, the GOP is responsible for. Where is the pattern of law itself, i.e. that which a national party could hold power over, that is specifically aimed ay helping white people or hurting black people, and says so even indirectly? Name the freaking law, since 1965, that is in any way a direct racist agenda against blacks and is the sole property of the GOP. Good luck, as that search will prove difficult.
No, here is an example of the "facts" in that article:
Quote:
By the 1966 midterms, Democratic candidates all over the country were finding that openly courting the black vote had sent many of their white constituents fleeing into the GOP’s waiting arms. Conservative Republicans made significant electoral gains that year, thanks to mass defections from the traditional New Deal Democratic coalition that had allowed that party to dominate presidential politics since 1932. Chief among these defectors were the white urban ethnic groups of the industrial North. In 1960, Kennedy captured 75 percent of the vote in traditional Polish and other Eastern European precincts in Illinois. By 1966, the Democratic share there was down to 53 percent. And in Ohio’s 1966 gubernatorial race the Democratic share of the Polish vote dropped 39 percentage points from Johnson’s 1964 totals, and a whopping 45 points from what Kennedy earned in 1960.
It’s not hard to understand what happened. Worried by racial unrest in their cities—“urban disorders,” they called it—and the threat of open-housing marches in their neighborhoods, these groups were no longer willing, en masse, to support a party that had come to be identified with an urban black underclass that they saw as pushing too fast for racial change.
From what facts other than electoral outcomes, do they base the motivation for white, urban, ethnic voters voting republican SOLELY because Democrats were openly courting the "urban black underclass?" This is faulty logic common to social "scientists" who take accepted myth as fact, and use that myth as the underlying assumption that "proves" a conclusion. It also assumes that the party platform of the Democrats in the 1960s, other than the black urban underclass, was superior to the GOP's where the day to day interests of the white urban ethnic voter was concerned. So I have to believe a bunch of assumptions based on nothing but accepted myth and narrative for that factually unsupported conclusion to have any basis whatsoever.
And to think, this is the work of people with PhDs. Clearly, advanced degrees in the social sciences do not require logical rigor.
It is an accepted, yet false, narrative that the GOP is racist, same as all kinds of other mythology. To "win" a debate, actual facts other than inferences made from electoral maps based on "here's where the racists were back then, look at them migrate." Plenty of people have already written on The Myth of Republican Racism, but they all point to the same debunkings, like Thurmond being the only Dixiecrat to actually switch parties.
Again, standard liberal bleating about racism. As always, nearly devoid of facts, based almost entirely on assumption, published so that people already in agreement will say "hellz yeah" and keep blindly voting for things they clearly know nothing about.
You constitutional purests need to realize that the Founders were a bunch of idiots that get way too much credit.
Remember, Men =/= non-white men or women.
The founders were brilliant men who understood human nature, were steeped in the writings of great philosophers like John Locke, and Montesquieu, and whose genius created a government like no other in the history of man.
The likes of Barack Obama cannot hold a candle to those men who were our Founding Fathers.
I read the entire article. Twice. Other than election results and some anecdotal quotes referring to the bipartisan process called gerrymandering (which both parties do, with relish, whenever they hold the majority and want to protect incumbency), there is no set of facts, no legsilative pattern, no written/debated/passed laws, nor national committee level evidence that would suffice as evidence in any sort of real deabte.
Correct, both parties gerrymander.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
The central premise is that Southern Dixiecrats were Jim Crow racists who voted against the Civil Rights Act, and then all switched their party when King JFK the Benevolent began pushing for civil rights, thus, the 2014 GOP is racist. I'd call it a poorly formed, incorrect conclusion, but even that is too generous as the word "conclusion" implies some sort of logic processwas involved, which is certainly not the case here.
Actually, it is true. Where are you finding evidence to disprove the hypothesis? Voting trends confirm it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
It's a garden variety liberal axe grind. GOP = racist because Nixon/Wallace/Goldwater/Southern Strategy/Reagan_welfare_queen/Tea Party/Duke lacrosse/whatever.
I go back to which policy, specifically designed, written and enacted into law to purposefully hurt black people, the GOP is responsible for. Where is the pattern of law itself, i.e. that which a national party could hold power over, that is specifically aimed ay helping white people or hurting black people, and says so even indirectly? Name the freaking law, since 1965, that is in any way a direct racist agenda against blacks and is the sole property of the GOP. Good luck, as that search will prove difficult.
You fundamentally are missing the point. Authoring blatantly racist legislation is different than supporting candidates that use racial politics to grab power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
No, here is an example of the "facts" in that article:
From what facts other than electoral outcomes, do they base the motivation for white, urban, ethnic voters voting republican SOLELY because Democrats were openly courting the "urban black underclass?" This is faulty logic common to social "scientists" who take accepted myth as fact, and use that myth as the underlying assumption that "proves" a conclusion. It also assumes that the party platform of the Democrats in the 1960s, other than the black urban underclass, was superior to the GOP's where the day to day interests of the white urban ethnic voter was concerned. So I have to believe a bunch of assumptions based on nothing but accepted myth and narrative for that factually unsupported conclusion to have any basis whatsoever.
I mean, when you put it that way....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
And to think, this is the work of people with PhDs. Clearly, advanced degrees in the social sciences do not require logical rigor.
But you do? When discrediting articles based on quantitative and qualitative research, where do you get off being more credible than voting results and research?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
It is an accepted, yet false, narrative that the GOP is racist, same as all kinds of other mythology. To "win" a debate, actual facts other than inferences made from electoral maps based on "here's where the racists were back then, look at them migrate." Plenty of people have already written on The Myth of Republican Racism, but they all point to the same debunkings, like Thurmond being the only Dixiecrat to actually switch parties.
The migration is pretty telling. Are you looking for a straw poll from 1965 as the only valid evidence? That is called moving the goal post into territory that can't be charted (kind of the point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Again, standard liberal bleating about racism. As always, nearly devoid of facts, based almost entirely on assumption, published so that people already in agreement will say "hellz yeah" and keep blindly voting for things they clearly know nothing about.
Actually it had facts. You just talked yourself into discrediting the evidence.
Discrimination based on race, sex or other things like that might infringe on the rights of other people but please explain how someone simply being racist infringes on your rights in any way.
Pretty much all one needs to know of this thread and its hysterical race-baiters perpetuating it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Discrimination based on race, sex or other things like that might infringe on the rights of other people but please explain how someone simply being racist infringes on your rights in any way.
