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.
Yep. It's 100% a lie. But how else are Democrats, the racist party of the USA, going to keep fooling left-wingers into voting for them? We're all seeing first-hand now how they blatantly lied about "Believe all women!" and "We believe survivors!" too.
Not to mention that during the 1968 Presidential Election, 5 Southern States were won not by Nixon, but by George Wallace. Wallace ran as an independent, but was a Democrat.
Then during the 1972 Presidential Election, Nixon won every state except for Massachusetts and DC, if that counts. Seems the South was in agreement with the North, West, Midwest, everywhere. 49 states is not a Southern Strategy. It's a winner take all strategy.
Nixon had some major flaws, but kissing up to good ole boys was not one of them.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted to pass it in both the House and Senate.
House Yea Vote: Republican: 80% Democrat: 63%
Senate Yea Vote: Republican: 82% Democrat: 69%
The stats you present are accurate and correct for the makeup of the parties in 1964. What you fail to mention is that the parties have been realigned since then. In 1964, both parties had liberals and conservatives, with the south having been almost totally solid Democrat - The Solid South since the founding of that party. Only after the civil rights legislation, primarily pushed by Kennedy and Johnson, but as you stated, with a lot of liberal Republican support, did the south begin to turn Republican.
It is a mischaracterization to state that because liberal Republicans, particularly northern Republicans voted for civil rights legislation that today's Republican party is the heir to that. Here is the vote by party and region:
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[25]
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee and Claude Pepper of Florida voted in favor)
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%)
What is important here is that conservatives voted against the legislation, whether they were in the Democratic party or the Republican party, whereas liberals in both parties voted for it. Since then, the parties have coalesced with the Republican party having almost no liberals and the Democratic party having very few conservatives.
Hard to be a Father when you're consonantly being thrown in jail on stupid drug laws. I don't think any poor black or white man intended to walk away from their kids. Lets attack the real problem in this country, The War on Drugs , or the war on Poor people is what its really called.
The funny part is, the average trump supporter and the average Black or Hispanic liberal have so much in common, but are too busy fighting over race to figure it out
You realize most welfare is spent on white people because they are 60.4% of the US population while Blacks are only 13.4%, no?
Welfare statistics show that Black people are way over-represented on the welfare program rolls. Interestingly, the same is true of Democrats. They're also way over-represented. For example, Food Stamps:
They have been way over represented in every element of American society that can be defined as a problem since 1619. What else is new? Or show me that shinning moment in American History where it was great to be black.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 05-07-2020 at 02:04 PM..
Hard to be a Father when you're consonantly being thrown in jail on stupid drug laws. I don't think any poor black or white man intended to walk away from their kids. Lets attack the real problem in this country, The War on Drugs , or the war on Poor people is what its really called.
The funny part is, the average trump supporter and the average Black or Hispanic liberal have so much in common, but are too busy fighting over race to figure it out
The drug war and mass incarceration - the US has the largest incarceration rate by far, in the world - have contributed heavily to this issue, as had 350 years of unequal rights under the law (250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow). Redlining, institutional racism and lack of equal opportunity even today heavily contribute as well.
There is no question that we have made great strides, thanks to progressive legislation and court decisions over the years, but we still have a long way to go.
The stats you present are accurate and correct for the makeup of the parties in 1964. What you fail to mention is that the parties have been realigned since then. In 1964, both parties had liberals and conservatives, with the south having been almost totally solid Democrat - The Solid South since the founding of that party. Only after the civil rights legislation, primarily pushed by Kennedy and Johnson, but as you stated, with a lot of liberal Republican support, did the south begin to turn Republican.
Primarily pushed by Kennedy and Johnson? Both Democrats, so why did it get much more support from Republicans than from Democrats?
Again...
Here are the actual votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the House and Senate:
VERY important to read that Chicago Magazine article. Much of the info is just simply jaw-dropping. For example, it was White Democrats who in the 1980s insisted the City of Chicago implement "equity insurance" in case they had to sell their homes at a loss because Blacks had moved into the neighborhood and torpedoed property values. The "equity insurance" program is still in place to this day.
The media never mentions it because the City of Chicago equity insurance program benefits White Democrat voters. They're protected from the loss of equity in their homes caused by what they've identified as "minority creep" into their lily White neighborhoods.
More background info on Chicago's "equity insurance" program:
1988, the inception of Chicago's "equity insurance" program was fairly recent, not pre-Civil Rights. And, as I said, the "equity insurance" program still exists to this day...
VERY important to read that Chicago Magazine article. Much of the info is just simply jaw-dropping. For example, it was White Democrats who in the 1980s insisted the City of Chicago implement "equity insurance" in case they had to sell their homes at a loss because Blacks had moved into the neighborhood and torpedoed property values. The "equity insurance" program is still in place to this day.
The media never mentions it because the City of Chicago equity insurance program benefits White Democrat voters. They're protected from the loss of equity in their homes caused by what they've identified as "minority creep" into their lily White neighborhoods.
More background info on Chicago's "equity insurance" program:
1988, the inception of Chicago's "equity insurance" program was fairly recent, not pre-Civil Rights. And, as I said, the "equity insurance" program still exists to this day...
As I posted in my post, northern Republicans and northern Democrats supported it in large numbers -(LIBERALS), whereas southern politicians of both parties, with the Democratic party still being overwhelmingly in the majority opposed it, as shown in the data, which I will post one more time here:
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.[25]
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee and Claude Pepper of Florida voted in favor)
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%)
It is historical record, that these Democrats, both members of Congres and the voting public began to switch to the Republican party after 1964 when the national Democratic party began to take on civil rights with Johnson at the head.
Your assertion is that the Republican party of 1964 is the same party in partisan makeup as today, which is untrue. The Republicans who voted for the bill in 1964 were liberals, whereas today the Republican party really has no liberals in its ranks at the federal level.
This is an oft used tactic to try to claim that Republicans are not racist. The best thing to do to show that is to not defend racist shootings as people are doing in another thread.
When I decide to debate a point, I debate a point. In this case, I preferred a joke to make a point. You’re free to read past my comments or block me if you wish. No one forces you to read. Didn’t realize I needed to ask your views before posting my comments. Carry on...
Didn't mean to strike a nerve. Maybe I should have used more lidocaine.
They have been way over represented in every element of American society that can be defined as a problem since 1619. What else is new? Or show me that shinning moment in American History where it was great to be black.
Thank you. Black people have been over represented in most categories that are bad. It's the odyssey of Black people in America. Black people didn't even choose to come to America. Black Americans (as a whole) are the one group who came to America through duress, being kidnapped, and basically prisoners of war. Black Americans didn't come here seeking a better life or looking for refuge. They came here shipped like cattle, and treated like animals. Slavery from 1619-1865. Reconstruction was for barely a decade. And then the 1870s-1960s of Jim Crow and other openly discriminatory laws against Blacks, making them 2nd class citizens. Over 300 years of gross human rights violations towards Blacks in America. And Black Americans didn't even have a say in coming to America.
All of this, and your last sentence speaks volumes. There will be people who try to claim anytime after the 60s was a good time to be Black. I find that to be a load of bull feces. If it was so great, then Black Americans en masse would be very happy and in a hurry to go back to the old days. As I see, as the conversations I've had hold, this is what I've noticed. I haven't met very many Black people who would be excited to return to the 1960s and before.
The only Black people I've met who seem somewhat nostalgic for the 50s and 60s are older Black people. One person I talked to didn't mess around, basically saying this: "Integration destroyed Black institutions such as the Negro Leagues, businesses, and Black neighborhoods." That person pined for the old days. No mention of welfare, or even two parent homes. Basically, said person felt that integration did more harm than good for the Black community. I mentioned to said person that Black Americans have more freedom than ever and we can do what we choose to do. We are more free than ever.
Outside of that, I don't meet many Blacks who pine for the old days. Most Blacks know it would have been much harder to be Black back then.
I am curious what your goal was when starting this thread.
To give some extra info to take into account whenever you hear that 70% out of wedlock stat related to Blacks. Is it true or not that married blacks are having fewer children in comparison to the past? Is that shaping that 70% stat?
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.
