145
146

Cruz: 'Democrats are the party of the Ku Klux Klan' (politico.com)

undue-influence が 投稿

全 43 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]repptar92 50 ポイント51 ポイント  (5子コメント)

We've all read this before and there are fifteen different ways to discuss the semantics.

But can't we just say that the supporters of Strom Thurmond didn't migrate en mass to New York and Massachusetts in such droves that "the party of the KKK" resides in the Democratic North?

It's just totally asinine. The GOP isn't the party of big government because Lincoln decided the South couldn't secede. It's a toxic premise historically and it ought to be put to bed.

[–]chipkellysbigballs [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's just totally asinine. The GOP isn't the party of big government because Lincoln decided the South couldn't secede. It's a toxic premise historically and it ought to be put to bed.

I agree. Even though it is true that the Democratic party once utilized the KKK as their domestic terrorist arm; it's important to note that the Strom Thurmond's, Orville Faubus', and Bull Connor's even though they were Democrats, were widely considered to be not in the mainstream. They were Democrats with power in their local areas; but otherwise there was very little national appeal for these guys.

William F. Buckley was the one who made this argument in his book The Unmaking of a Mayor where he talked about Democrat and Republican politicians that weren't really supported by the core party and who had views that ran counter to the views of the rest of the party.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

They didn't need to migrate. The south remained a Democratic stronghold for decades after the Civil Rights bills were passed. By the time you saw governors and state legislators consistently voting Republicans was nearly a generation or two after the Civil Rights (essentially the Dixiecrats had all died off).

If anyone bothered to ready the article, Cruz stated that the Democrats were the party that founded the KKK, imposed the Jim Crow laws yet are nearly always the ones crying "racism" every chance they can get.

edit: BTW how did you come across /r/conservative?

[–]FifthFaktory [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

They're saying that is kind of meaningless to associate the ideology of the Southern Democrats with the modern Democrat party when it is a descendant of the Northern Democrats. Sure the Southern Democrats didn't switch party affiliation, but really what's in a name when they had been doing their own thing for decades preceding the final schism that would set the South slowly drifting over to the Republican party.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

There is no "meaningless" as the subject was Democrats calling Jeff Sessions a racist consistently, even though he brought KKK members to justice. It's a fair retort to a group that likes to sling mud.

The GOP has zero history of racist policy, Democrats have over a century of it.

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Cruz states: "Democrats founded the KKK". Which is true based on its history. Concern trolls with no history of posting in /r/conservative seemed to have found their way here from other discussions apparently.

The Democratic party is actually employing KKK tactics with its tribal politics. The targets of their hate have changed, but their tactics have not. Cruz doesn't make this argument, I am. Leftists are insanely bigoted right now to the point that they are driving out moderates.

[–]vy2005 [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

It's true but it's utterly meaningless today. Democrats were also the party that pushed through civil rights. Who gives a fuck what the party's position was 80 years ago?

[–]LengthyWarfareRight Wing Libertarian [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Democrats were also the party that pushed through civil rights

Nope. LBJ pushed the Civil Rights act. It passed through the House with 80% republican support and only 69% democratic support. In the senate, it passed with 82% republican support and again 69% democratic support. Republicans made up the majority of the votes for the civil rights act- in fact it was democrats who filibustered against it.

[–]Zeonic [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

And if you separate the southern Democrats from the rest of the party, what do the percentages become?

[–]Seamus_OReilly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why would you do that?

[–]Conservative4512Great State of Michigan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"If you take away important parts of the data, it'll fit my agenda"

[–]Seamus_OReilly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Eisenhower passed 2 civil rights acts. The only reason they weren't more comprehensive was that the Democrats filibustered them until they were watered down. He also nationalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the 101st Airborne to enforce school integration.

[–]Jra805 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

More so than Republicans? I don't think it's a party affiliation problem, more of a people problem in general. Most people are "tribal."

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is the Democratic Party bread and butter. They create arbitrary tribes, and you must abide by it or you're an "Uncle Tom" (or equivalent for said group). They use these groups as a form of division within the country to stir up anger and hate against other groups. This division ultimately leads to bigotry. This is the same political platform the KKK did to create its movement. If you disagree with a Democratic policy they automatically claim you hate one of their tribal groups. Such an association automatically makes that tribe take it personally, thus breeding actual hate in response.

So instead of disagreeing about a political position or policy. It now becomes personal if you disagree with a political position or policy.

[–]neutral_politics-inq 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Democrats have attempted to rewrite history claiming there was a 'big switch' where all republicans became democrats, and democrats became republicans.

This is the single biggest lie, and most important lie, that the democrats tell every day.

If you look at the actual data of how voters voted, and actual movement between the parties, the 'big switch' is actually just 'the big lie'.

[–]YankeeBlues21 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Drives me crazy as well. My favorite part is that when you press liberals about the "big switch", they sometimes can't even agree on when it happened or why.

I've heard various people say the parties realigned under FDR because he pushed the Dems left under his 13 year term, that LBJ did it (despite the GOP Congress being the ones to pass Civil Rights), I've seen Nixon cited (by separate people) as both the arch-conservative who courted racist southerners and caused the switch & ideological shift AND as an example of how liberal Republicans were before the switch...

At the end of the day, we've got Coolidge on the pre-switch side and Reagan on the post-switch side, while the Dems have the father of modern progressivism, Woodrow Wilson on the pre-switch side, and are still progressives with Obama. The South started slowly shifting toward the GOP under Eisenhower because of improving economic conditions in the post-war years, but it took 50 years for the southern states to officially make the switch and vote Republican as a block in 2000. What people miss in the intervening years is that (and showing electoral maps can help support this) the GOP wasn't the party of the south...in four elections in the later 20th century ('72, '80, '84, '88) they were the party of the entire country, with 4 absolutely dominant landslides where, yeah, they won the south as well as all of the other geographic regions. In non-GOP landslides during that time ('76, '92, '96), Carter & Clinton could still rely on most of the southern states.

[–]peniscurve [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It is the big lie?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States#1960s

A lot of Democrats in the 1960s switched to Republicans. How many does it take to make it be a 'big switch'?

[–]blizzardice 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (14子コメント)

He isn't wrong.

[–]Swifty66 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Just slightly out of date.

[–]johndeer89Moderate Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Agreed. We should instead focus on the nonprofit group that's founding purpose was to eliminate the black population and receives government funding thanks to the strong support of democrats.

[–]NotBryzgoalie30 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (10子コメント)

What do you mean?

Edit: this is why Reddit is toxic sitewide I asked a question because I didn't know what the person meant and I got downvotes

[–]cakeeater27 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (7子コメント)

1930's Democratic Party and Republican Party don't resemble the modern parties and their positions at all.

Democrats supported the Confederacy during the civil war, would you consider people who support the right to fly the Confederate flag Democrats in 2016?

[–]exigence 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

They do though, and that's the point. Republicans have always been the party that says skin color doesn't matter and we should all be treated equally. Democrats have always been the party that says skin color does matter and we should not be treated equally, because there are different set of rules. The only thing that has changed is that Democrats no longer have malice in their heart towards people of different skin color (now it's toward Conservatives).

[–]ciderlout [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Sounds like you are upset by affirmative action(?), otherwise not sure what you mean about Democrats believing people with different skin colour should be treated differently. I mean, I don't think it is a perfect thing, and can lead to discrimination against the dominant ethnicity (in this case, "white"), but how would you suggest a government should help it's society heal the legacy of slavery and racial segregation? Do nothing?

[–]NotBryzgoalie30 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Don't give a platform to people who say white people should open reparation accounts for black people, don't have self hating white people saying their job is to shut down the white voice so blacks can talk like one of the people running for the dnc chair said. Those are two specific examples, more broadly you could create an environment where people of different races engage with each other and build relationships instead of being divisive like it's been for the last 8 years and definitely could be for the next 4+

[–]midareashi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

http://www.hoover.org/research/affirmative-action-around-world

[–]TheDemonicEmperor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

1930's Democratic Party and Republican Party don't resemble the modern parties and their positions at all.

1930's Democrat party platform: government should take care of everything. 2017 Democrat party platform: government should take care of everything.

Yeah, not so much of a difference between what the parties are advocating. Republicans have always been small government, unless you believe someone like Coolidge would be a modern-day Democrat.

[–]NotBryzgoalie30 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't consider supporting the confederacy and the right to fly the flag the same issue but I see your point

[–]ksa10 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

At a certain point you learn to tone out downvotes. Taking it personally does you no benefit.

[–]Colonize_The_Moon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Planned Parenthood.

[–]NuclearSpaceLegos [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well no, he's wrong because the political parties in the year 1865 are completely different than the 'same' respective political parties in 2017.

[–]iamfromtoronto [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

imo this was a stupid comment. i mean, you can complain about the dems bigly - but going for a kkk association in the year 2017 is moronic.

[–]peniscurve [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Both sides are doing it consistently. Same thing with people calling each other nazis, or trying to compare Trump to Hitler. There is no need to do it, it doesn't further your cause, and is just annoying to see all the time.

[–]LegoFarmer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I agree completely. Are we seriously blaming the wrongdoing of their party on present-day democrats? Do we blame white people for slavery too?

[–]jpa321-2 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

LOL, yeah lots of Klan members voting for Democrats... big Obama fans in the Klan.

[–]Q2Tas [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

There's hardly any left, largely thanks to people like Sessions. For a guy the left has tried to label as racist, he sure did do a lot to destroy the KKK and desegregate Alabama.

[–]TheDemonicEmperor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, that's basically it. The racist KKK Democrats never actually left the party, they just all mostly died out by the 80s or stopped supporting any party altogether. The South was still a Democrat stronghold until Reagan, after Civil Rights and after the height of racial tensions in the 70s. Is it that hard for people to believe that the people voting in the South a few generations later are much more progressive than their predecessors?

[–]DukeMaximum [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is true, but it doesn't really get much traction in the modern era. The Democrats have completely out-marketed the Republicans by selling minority communities on the premise that they are the defenders of civil rights.