PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: bflynn on April 19, 2016, 06:40:50 AM
-
I heard an interesting idea advanced yesterday - the question was raised as to whether or not boycotts of a particular state (NC) represent a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Briefly stated, the act says that actions which discriminate or systemically disadvantage a group are illegal.
It's been determined that even if there is no specific action, a statistical violation suffices. For example, if drug sentencing laws punish crack cocaine 10 times more harshly than powder cocaine and crack is almost exclusively used by the black community then the drug sentencing law is in violation of the Civil Right Act.
If a company refuses to hire people from a state, is that a violation of the CRA? Does that disadvantage people of the ethnic background of "North Carolina"?
If a company decides not to do business in a state, does that systemically disadvantage a protected group? Does it statistically disadvantage a certain group of religious people if that group of people are more densely represented in the state?
If a person or organization cancels a meeting or concert, has discrimination occurred?
Keep in mind the statistical method of disadvantaging a protected group. You don't have to even intend to do it, it can be accidental. But once discovered, you have to correct it.
Do you want to soften the CRA in order to excuse boycotts?
And is this the right way to make law?
-
And is this the right way to make law?
nope
-
It would be fun and sporting to watch the civil rights activists be hoisted by their own petard, to borrow from Hamlet.
-
Do you have the statistical data for NC? Could you link to the legal precedent? Does this pass the absurdity test? If opting not to do business in a certain state is statistical discrimination, is nearly every business in the nation violating anti-discrimination laws?
-
Do you have the statistical data for NC? Could you link to the legal precedent? Does this pass the absurdity test? If opting not to do business in a certain state is statistical discrimination, is nearly every business in the nation violating anti-discrimination laws?
Perhaps if the law is absurd, the best way to get rid of it is to point out its absurdity.
-
Perhaps if the law is absurd, the best way to get rid of it is to point out its absurdity.
Is the law absurd, or is the extreme example absurd?
-
Is the law absurd, or is the extreme example absurd?
The more politically correct we become the more absurd we become. And the headlong drive to PC is indeed becoming absurd.
-
I think in general there's nothing to it. But the place that I question has to do with employment.
Would it be OK for someone to carte blanche not hire anyone from San Francisco because the city supports homosexuality? I suspect when I put it that way then the reverse question of "Is it OK for a company to carte blanche not hire anyone from North Carolina because of HB2" becomes a more difficult one to deny.
Did Paypal commit a CRA violation by refusing to hire North Carolina people because of HB2? Did Ringo commit a CRA violation by refusing to entertain fans, keeping in mind that hospitality facilities were the original target of the CRA? I don't know. But they are questions I'd like to have answered because there does seem to be a question about them.
Are you strong enough to challenge your own prejudices to arrive at an single principal that goes both ways?
-
I've never met a progressive willing to admit that the knife cuts both ways when challenged like that.
-
Do you have the statistical data for NC? Could you link to the legal precedent? Does this pass the absurdity test? If opting not to do business in a certain state is statistical discrimination, is nearly every business in the nation violating anti-discrimination laws?
I do not, it's not my profession to track statistics. I'm repeating an idea that is brewing out there.
Of course there's no problem with every business not having a presence in NC. But if a company changes and explicitly states that it is because of a policy change, that is a different situation. See my San Fran example above.
-
I've never met a progressive willing to admit that the knife cuts both ways when challenged like that.
I rarely have either. But I have met many who can be shown to be idiots because they cling to blatantly contradictory positions depending on whether they are for or against certain groups. The hypocrisy is glaring.
-
I rarely have either. But I have met many who can be shown to be idiots because they cling to blatantly contradictory positions depending on whether they are for or against certain groups. The hypocrisy is glaring.
Hypocrisy IS the singular family value of most progressives. Just look at Hilary Clinton's attacks on personal wealth.
-
I heard an interesting idea advanced yesterday - the question was raised as to whether or not boycotts of a particular state (NC) represent a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Briefly stated, the act says that actions which discriminate or systemically disadvantage a group are illegal.
But that is not what it says. The group has to be one of the protected classes which the statute set out as being those based race, color, religion, sex or national origin. North Carolina residency does not qualify as any of those things.
If a company refuses to hire people from a state, is that a violation of the CRA? Does that disadvantage people of the ethnic background of "North Carolina"?
Residency in North Carolina is not an ethnic background.
Keep in mind the statistical method of disadvantaging a protected group. You don't have to even intend to do it, it can be accidental. But once discovered, you have to correct it.
What you are referring to is known in the legal biz as "disparate impact". However, it still has to be a protected category. There is no way to spin it that residency in the state of North Carolina is a protected class based on the CRA.
The whole cake thing is silly. It is silly for someone to object to cranking out a cake and it is silly for the ACLU, etc, to make a big deal out of it. I am sure that they could find a more significant issue that actually matters in the grand scheme of things to make their legal stand.
-
Hypocrisy IS the singular family value of most progressives. Just look at Hilary Clinton's attacks on personal wealth.
Yet she gets $365,000 per speech from Goldman Sachs. The Clintons have amassed a fortune since Bill was President. They both have taken money from foreign and domestic special interests for influence peddling.
-
Yet she gets $365,000 per speech from Goldman Sachs. The Clintons have amassed a fortune since Bill was President. They both have taken money from foreign and domestic special interests for influence peddling.
Lots of rich people denigrate the rich, or advocate stealing their money thru taxes. Warren Buffet, George Soros. John Kerry. 80% of Hollywood.
-
Lots of rich people denigrate the rich, or advocate stealing their money thru taxes. Warren Buffet, George Soros. John Kerry. 80% of Hollywood.
It's easy to advocate stealing from the middle income people when you're rich.
-
Hypocrisy IS the singular family value of most progressives. Just look at Hilary Clinton's attacks on personal wealth.
Progressives do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. The right wind ideologues are right their two. That is the problem with rigid ideology. It always makes for a better sound bite than it makes for policy. Like the GOP being for small government. They talk it up while they increase the size of the federal government.
-
Progressives do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. The right wind ideologues are right their two. That is the problem with rigid ideology. It always makes for a better sound bite than it makes for policy. Like the GOP being for small government. They talk it up while they increase the size of the federal government.
The establishment GOP is not "right wing". They are center left, and that is being kind.
-
The establishment GOP is not "right wing". They are center left, and that is being kind.
Once upon a time (anything beyond a decade ago is a thing impossible for many hard line progressives to imagine) John F. Kennedy was out at the far left of the democrat party. Now when you quote from JFK you get progressives claiming he was a right wing reactionary. The left has become the coo-coo zone, and the republican party has become just a tad bit left of where JFK stood.
I have zero respect for either of them in the modern parlance..
-
Once upon a time (anything beyond a decade ago is a thing impossible for many hard line progressives to imagine) John F. Kennedy was out at the far left of the democrat party. Now when you quote from JFK you get progressives claiming he was a right wing reactionary. The left has become the coo-coo zone, and the republican party has become just a tad bit left of where JFK stood.
I have zero respect for either of them in the modern parlance..
With support of the media, education, and our Government class, the progressives (Democrats) are winning the fight. Yes, they are Koo Koo, but more, and more people have been brainwashed and they buy into this crap.
-
The establishment GOP is not "right wing". They are center left, and that is being kind.
I wouldn't call "W" center left and he expanded entitlements and the size of the federal government.
Then of course you have people like Ted Haggard who preaches against homosexuality and the hires male prostitutes. And then we have the Catholic church who preaches the sin of homosexuality and leaves it open-season on alter boys. It looks like hypocrisy to me.
-
I would not call Republicans either left of center or far right wing. I would call them to the right, the same way I would say that Democrats are to the left and both have fringe fanatics in their parties.
Nor would I credit Republicans with "continuing to increase the size of government". If you recall Obama blames Republicans for the sequester legislation which forces cuts in government.
Unfortunately the government is has a mechanism whereby it grows without controls. If nobody makes any laws to change it, our government will increase in size every year. And every time it grows, it needs more of our money. That ought to be a concern for everyone.
-
If you recall Obama blames Republicans for the sequester legislation which forces cuts in government.
Um...no.
It slightly reduced the rate of growth of the government, nothing was cut whatsoever.
-
And then we have the Catholic church who preaches the sin of homosexuality and leaves it open-season on alter boys. It looks like hypocrisy to me.
Are you seriously claiming that the entire Catholic hierarchy is republican? If so, then you are a stone liar. If not , then you simply are attempting to crowd more lies into a statement to nudge the narrative that anything bad that happens is automatically the republicans' fault.
-
Are you seriously claiming that the entire Catholic hierarchy is republican? If so, then you are a stone liar. If not , then you simply are attempting to crowd more lies into a statement to nudge the narrative that anything bad that happens is automatically the republicans' fault.
Her statement was so bigoted and ignorant it wasn't even worthy of a response.
-
Um...no.
It slightly reduced the rate of growth of the government, nothing was cut whatsoever.
True, but bflynn has a point. Obama was kicking and screaming like a little Trump when it came to the sequester. Yet when leftists try to claim how "Obama" shrunk the deficit, they never mention the sequester as being the sole reason for such shrinkage. It was the sole piece of fiscally responsible legislation passed in a generation.
-
Um...no.
It slightly reduced the rate of growth of the government, nothing was cut whatsoever.
well, to the liberal, anything that reduces the size of increases is a horrible mean-spirited cut.
-
Residency in North Carolina is not an ethnic background.
Can you provide a citation for this assertion? Has a court ruled such before?
-
I would not call Republicans either left of center or far right wing. I would call them to the right, the same way I would say that Democrats are to the left and both have fringe fanatics in their parties.
Nor would I credit Republicans with "continuing to increase the size of government". If you recall Obama blames Republicans for the sequester legislation which forces cuts in government.
Unfortunately the government is has a mechanism whereby it grows without controls. If nobody makes any laws to change it, our government will increase in size every year. And every time it grows, it needs more of our money. That ought to be a concern for everyone.
The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy!
-
Are you seriously claiming that the entire Catholic hierarchy is republican? If so, then you are a stone liar. If not , then you simply are attempting to crowd more lies into a statement to nudge the narrative that anything bad that happens is automatically the republicans' fault.
No. There are conservative Democrats. A lot less than there used to be, but some are still there.
-
Her statement was so bigoted and ignorant it wasn't even worthy of a response.
I know! It is terribly bigoted of me to point out that progressives are not the only ones practicing hypocrisy. Obviously, if I claimed that progressives were the only group that was hypocritical then I wouldn't be bigoted. I would then be wise, informed, generous, intelligent, loving, god-fearing, and any other good adjective that we can come up with. I will try to work on it. I am so ashamed. :'(
-
Can you provide a citation for this assertion? Has a court ruled such before?
I think it is too obvious to have ever been a point of controversy in court. Do you have a citation that says otherwise.
-
I think it is too obvious to have ever been a point of controversy in court. Do you have a citation that says otherwise.
I think many North Carolinians would consider themselves to have a unique culture and background.
If you are permitted to "identify" as a black woman and demand that the world accede to your delusion, then why not identify as ethnically North Carolinian?
-
I think many North Carolinians would consider themselves to have a unique culture and background.
If you are permitted to "identify" as a black woman and demand that the world accede to your delusion, then why not identify as ethnically North Carolinian?
I am not an authority on how North Carolinians self-identify. However, it might be a tough argument to make to a court for two reasons. One, given our societal mobility since the war, they are not as homogeneous as they once were. In short, too many Yankees have moved in. ;D Also, they are not terribly unique as I would be hard pressed to description the attributes that made North Carolina a unique ethnic group that did not also apply to Virginians, South Carolinians, etc. That is why I doubt that you will find a court decision defining it.
Also, much of our discrimination laws do not speak of ethnicity but rather speak of "national origins" as one of the protected classes.
If we did a DNA test of someone, we can tell if they are African, European, Asian, etc. I don't think we can tell whether they are North Carolinian by a DNA test. Maybe in 10,000 years we will be able to.
-
If we did a DNA test of someone, we can tell if they are African, European, Asian, etc. I don't think we can tell whether they are North Carolinian by a DNA test. Maybe in 10,000 years we will be able to.
A DNA test can tell if someone is male or female very easily as well, but this whole thing is about not being able to do that.
-
A DNA test can tell if someone is male or female very easily as well, but this whole thing is about not being able to do that.
With some exceptions and it seems to be the exceptions were are discussing here.
-
I am not an authority on how North Carolinians self-identify.
I am an authority on it, having lived here for 40+ years and being married to one of the few natives. North Carolinians are fiercely proud of being from North Carolina, very protective of their state and stubborn as all get out when pushed around. We will dispute between the major NC schools like Carolina, State and Wake Forest (Duke is not an NC school) but all that gets put aside in an instant when someone challenges the state.
Regardless, I'm still rather concerned about a company categorically refusing to hire someone from a geographic region based on a disagreement of policy. Nobody has said anything to convince that it is OK and I'm more convinced that it is absolutely wrong.
-
With some exceptions and it seems to be the exceptions were are discussing here.
Actually, pretty much 100% accurately.
-
I am an authority on it, having lived here for 40+ years and being married to one of the few natives. North Carolinians are fiercely proud of being from North Carolina, very protective of their state and stubborn as all get out when pushed around. We will dispute between the major NC schools like Carolina, State and Wake Forest (Duke is not an NC school) but all that gets put aside in an instant when someone challenges the state.
What percentage of North Carolinians were born there? Is a white North Carolinian of Scottish/Irish heritage the same ethnic group as a native black North Carolinian? Regardless of what you think it is, the law is very likely to have a different view.
Regardless, I'm still rather concerned about a company categorically refusing to hire someone from a geographic region based on a disagreement of policy. Nobody has said anything to convince that it is OK and I'm more convinced that it is absolutely wrong.
I am not aware of any company not being willing to hire a North Carolinian. I am aware of some that have chosen not to open up shop in North Carolina. The 13th Amendment would prevent the government from forcing a company to open an office some place that it did not want to.
-
I am not aware of any company not being willing to hire a North Carolinian. I am aware of some that have chosen not to open up shop in North Carolina. The 13th Amendment would prevent the government from forcing a company to open an office some place that it did not want to.
Yet the same company will do business with ME countries that would have a transgender person executed, not allow women to drive, etc, etc, etc.
What a stand they're taking. :o
-
What percentage of North Carolinians were born there? Is a white North Carolinian of Scottish/Irish heritage the same ethnic group as a native black North Carolinian? Regardless of what you think it is, the law is very likely to have a different view.
I am not aware of any company not being willing to hire a North Carolinian. I am aware of some that have chosen not to open up shop in North Carolina. The 13th Amendment would prevent the government from forcing a company to open an office some place that it did not want to.
But the 13th Amendment would not prevent the same government from forcing someone to, say, bake a cake if they didn't want to bake said said cake.
-
Is a white North Carolinian of Scottish/Irish heritage the same ethnic group as a native black North Carolinian?
As much as a white American and Black American are equally American.
Try again. You're not thinking very far ahead.
-
Yet the same company will do business with ME countries that would have a transgender person executed, not allow women to drive, etc, etc, etc.
What a stand they're taking. :o
On that bit of hypocrisy I agree completely. If a company is going to get upset about a bathroom issue they should be enraged against all the Islamic countries who make life much harder or impossible.
-
But the 13th Amendment would not prevent the same government from forcing someone to, say, bake a cake if they didn't want to bake said said cake.
The 13th Amendment would keep the government from forcing someone to go into the cake making business, but once they chose that as a business, the government can say that they have to take all comers and can't pick and choose.
-
As much as a white American and Black American are equally American.
Try again. You're not thinking very far ahead.
Either you are not thinking at all or you are not explaining very well.
If blacks and whites are the same ethnic group because they are Americans (a group that has never been defined as an ethnicity), then North Carolinians and Californians are the same ethnicity hence there is no discrimination potential, either way.
Twist it any way you want to, being a North Carolina resident is not a protected class. End of story.
-
The 13th Amendment would keep the government from forcing someone to go into the cake making business, but once they chose that as a business, the government can say that they have to take all comers and can't pick and choose.
Certainly true... in a statist, socialist, progressive-communist way, you're right.
-
Certainly true... in a statist, socialist, progressive-communist way, you're right.
Also in the way the law is today.
-
Also in the way the law is today.
Which is a statist and communist way to enforce laws that destroy liberty.
-
Which is a statist and communist way to enforce laws that destroy liberty.
The Federal government, and the states have created laws that are un-Constitutional. Layers, and layers of overly restrictive laws and regulations which are upheld by corrupt courts that illegally legislate from the bench. This has mostly happened since the modern Progressive movement has been in control since the 1960's. So we've had 50 plus years of indoctrination to think this is "normal". There are level headed, relatively moderate people here that have bought into all that.
-
Why is it ok with libs that someone that opens a business loses their personal rights, but it is a travesty if someone else loses any of their rights? What is it about people that own businesses that liberals hate?
Why do liberals wage war on business?
-
It is the civil rights movement that has created laws that gave the courts more of a role in regulating the country. It is the Jim Crow policies of the South that has done as much to expand the roll of the federal government as anything else.
-
It is the civil rights movement that has created laws that gave the courts more of a role in regulating the country. It is the Jim Crow policies of the South that has done as much to expand the roll of the federal government as anything else.
Then you would be complaining about democratic party policies, platforms, and pushes, since the democrats are the ones that invented Jim Crow laws, protected and fought to protect slavery, courted and protected the KKK, and voted as a block to keep the 1959 Civil Rights Act from passing, then turned around and projected their insane racism onto republicans ever since, while enjoying the media blindness to their never ending string of racist policies.
-
Then you would be complaining about democratic party policies, platforms, and pushes, since the democrats are the ones that invented Jim Crow laws, protected and fought to protect slavery, courted and protected the KKK, and voted as a block to keep the 1959 Civil Rights Act from passing, then turned around and projected their insane racism onto republicans ever since, while enjoying the media blindness to their never ending string of racist policies.
You stole my thunder.
-
Then you would be complaining about democratic party policies, platforms, and pushes, since the democrats are the ones that invented Jim Crow laws, protected and fought to protect slavery, courted and protected the KKK, and voted as a block to keep the 1959 Civil Rights Act from passing, then turned around and projected their insane racism onto republicans ever since, while enjoying the media blindness to their never ending string of racist policies.
History lesson needed here. When you say Jim Crow and Democrats in the same sentence, you have to be referring to the conservative southern politicians known as the "Yellow Dog Democrats". This was the group that instituted and maintained Jim Crow and fought civil rights all the way through. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican and was said in the 19th Century that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They represented a right-wing element of an otherwise more liberal party.
After the Dems and LBJ, with some Republican support passed the CRA of 1964, the Yellow Dog Democrats started to drift over to the Republican party, which accelerated with RR courting them in the 80's. The GOP's so called Southern Strategy. It worked.
So the group that opposed civil rights, to the degree that they are still alive, are now part of the GOP, not the Dems. Rather than projecting their racism onto the GOP, they gave them their racists.
Of course, the Dems are still racist in their own way, but so too are parts of the GOP.
-
History lesson needed here. When you say Jim Crow and Democrats in the same sentence, you have to be referring to the conservative southern politicians known as the "Yellow Dog Democrats". This was the group that instituted and maintained Jim Crow and fought civil rights all the way through. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican and was said in the 19th Century that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They represented a right-wing element of an otherwise more liberal party.
After the Dems and LBJ, with some Republican support passed the CRA of 1964, the Yellow Dog Democrats started to drift over to the Republican party, which accelerated with RR courting them in the 80's. The GOP's so called Southern Strategy. It worked.
So the group that opposed civil rights, to the degree that they are still alive, are now part of the GOP, not the Dems. Rather than projecting their racism onto the GOP, they gave them their racists.
Of course, the Dems are still racist in their own way, but so too are parts of the GOP.
Ahhh... That old pathetic chant.
Republicans do it tooooo....
Why is it democrats get a pass for their racist history, and progressives pretend whatever it takes to blame republicans?
Oh, right. It's all projection on your part.
-
Ahhh...the old "they switched" line.
When/where was the meeting where all the racists decided to leave the dems for the republicans?
-
Ahhh...the old "they switched" line.
When/where was the meeting where all the racists decided to leave the dems for the republicans?
It might have been held on Amelia Earhart's plane where they also voted to have George Bush blow up the dykes in New Orleans in time for hurricane Katrina.
-
Ahhh...the old "they switched" line.
When/where was the meeting where all the racists decided to leave the dems for the republicans?
Al Gore's Father became a Republican? As did George Wallace? Who knew!
-
It might have been held on Amelia Earhart's plane where they also voted to have George Bush blow up the dykes in New Orleans in time for hurricane Katrina.
What did sexual orientation have to do with Katrina?
-
Ahhh... That old pathetic chant.
Republicans do it tooooo....
Why is it democrats get a pass for their racist history, and progressives pretend whatever it takes to blame republicans?
Oh, right. It's all projection on your part.
You will do anything to avoid the facts and feed your fantasy.
-
Ahhh...the old "they switched" line.
When/where was the meeting where all the racists decided to leave the dems for the republicans?
I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I merely point out that it happened. A fact beyond rational dispute.
-
I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I merely point out that it happened. A fact beyond rational dispute.
"Beyond rational dispute" except that there's no evidence of such a switch, except for proof by repeated assertion by democrats who never have to answer for their intellectual forebears.
-
History lesson needed here. When you say Jim Crow and Democrats in the same sentence, you have to be referring to the conservative southern politicians known as the "Yellow Dog Democrats". This was the group that instituted and maintained Jim Crow and fought civil rights all the way through. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican and was said in the 19th Century that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They represented a right-wing element of an otherwise more liberal party.
After the Dems and LBJ, with some Republican support passed the CRA of 1964, the Yellow Dog Democrats started to drift over to the Republican party, which accelerated with RR courting them in the 80's. The GOP's so called Southern Strategy. It worked.
So the group that opposed civil rights, to the degree that they are still alive, are now part of the GOP, not the Dems. Rather than projecting their racism onto the GOP, they gave them their racists.
Of course, the Dems are still racist in their own way, but so too are parts of the GOP.
Maybe a reading of history would be beneficial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
It was democrats who tried to bottle it up in committee and tried to filibuster.
-
"Beyond rational dispute" except that there's no evidence of such a switch, except for proof by repeated assertion by democrats who never have to answer for their intellectual forebears.
Actually there is. http://www.270towin.com/states/ Look up the southern states. Solid Democratic in presidential elections from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act. Then it switched.
For more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Beyond rational dispute.
-
Maybe a reading of history would be beneficial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
It was democrats who tried to bottle it up in committee and tried to filibuster.
Thank you for the assistance. This part of that article proves my point.
he original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
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%)
Southern Democrat were against civil rights. Northern Democrats were for. There were nearly no Southern Republicans. It is beyond rationale dispute that this has switched and this voting block in now with the GOP.
-
Actually there is. http://www.270towin.com/states/ Look up the southern states. Solid Democratic in presidential elections from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Act. Then it switched.
For more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
How people vote in Presidential elections can have many reasons. One reason might be to reward the party that actually made the CRA of 1964 pass. Hint: It wasn't Democrats.
-
What did sexual orientation have to do with Katrina?
Before the operation it was Hurricane Karl.
-
History lesson needed here. When you say Jim Crow and Democrats in the same sentence, you have to be referring to the conservative southern politicians known as the "Yellow Dog Democrats". This was the group that instituted and maintained Jim Crow and fought civil rights all the way through. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican and was said in the 19th Century that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They represented a right-wing element of an otherwise more liberal party.
After the Dems and LBJ, with some Republican support passed the CRA of 1964, the Yellow Dog Democrats started to drift over to the Republican party, which accelerated with RR courting them in the 80's. The GOP's so called Southern Strategy. It worked.
So the group that opposed civil rights, to the degree that they are still alive, are now part of the GOP, not the Dems. Rather than projecting their racism onto the GOP, they gave them their racists.
Of course, the Dems are still racist in their own way, but so too are parts of the GOP.
Apparently Robert Byrd missed the memo about changing parties.
-
How people vote in Presidential elections can have many reasons. One reason might be to reward the party that actually made the CRA of 1964 pass. Hint: It wasn't Democrats.
Let's see, Southern Dems vote almost unanimously against the CRA and then start voting for GOP presidential candidates after nearly 0ne hundred years of voting for Dems and you think that maybe they were rewarding the GOP for helping defeat them. Really? I hope you washed your hands after digging that one out.
-
History lesson needed here. When you say Jim Crow and Democrats in the same sentence, you have to be referring to the conservative southern politicians known as the "Yellow Dog Democrats". This was the group that instituted and maintained Jim Crow and fought civil rights all the way through. They were only Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican and was said in the 19th Century that they would vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican. They represented a right-wing element of an otherwise more liberal party.
After the Dems and LBJ, with some Republican support passed the CRA of 1964, the Yellow Dog Democrats started to drift over to the Republican party, which accelerated with RR courting them in the 80's. The GOP's so called Southern Strategy. It worked.
So the group that opposed civil rights, to the degree that they are still alive, are now part of the GOP, not the Dems. Rather than projecting their racism onto the GOP, they gave them their racists.
Of course, the Dems are still racist in their own way, but so too are parts of the GOP.
Can you explain to me how Reagan "courted" the racist wing of the democrat party?
-
Can you explain to me how Reagan "courted" the racist wing of the democrat party?
I should have said Nixon. My goof there, but the point remains.
-
Let's see, Southern Dems vote almost unanimously against the CRA and then start voting for GOP presidential candidates after nearly 0ne hundred years of voting for Dems and you think that maybe they were rewarding the GOP for helping defeat them. Really? I hope you washed your hands after digging that one out.
Let's see.
Republicans assure and promote passage of civil rights legislation that heaven's sake allowed southern Blacks to actually vote in Presidential elections, and then whoa! people get surprised when Republicans start winning elections in southern states?
-
I should have said Nixon. My goof there, but the point remains.
"Fake but accurate", huh?
-
Let's see.
Republicans assure and promote passage of civil rights legislation that heaven's sake allowed southern Blacks to actually vote in Presidential elections, and then whoa! people get surprised when Republicans start winning elections in southern states?
The problem with that theory is that the blacks were not enfranchised immediately and the change in the voting was. The Voting Rights Act didn't pass until 1965. The CRA was passed in 1964 and that November in the national elections the south went for Goldwater who had voted against the CRA and took the position that it was a federal interference with state's right.
Certainly, in subsequent elections the black vote did have some affect, but mostly it had an affect for the Democrats as the blacks overwhelmingly identify as Democrats, yet the South has consistently voted for the GOP presidential candidate with the exception of when a southern Democrat governor ran, i.e. Carter.
It is beyond rational dispute that the bulk of the Yellow Dog Democrats switched their allegiance after the Civil Rights Act passed. It cannot honestly be said that the Dems are the racist party and the GOP is not.
-
"Fake but accurate", huh?
Reagan's southern strategy was a bit of an evolution of the original started by Nixon and my point was a bit more to Nixon's than to Reagan's, but they are related strategies.
-
It is beyond rational dispute that the bulk of the Yellow Dog Democrats switched their allegiance after the Civil Rights Act passed. It cannot honestly be said that the Dems are the racist party and the GOP is not.
I suppose you could be right, not withstanding LBJ's famous comment that after passage, "We'll have those N-words voting democrat for 100 years."
Democrats are responsible for the destruction of the Black family, with their welfare policies. Democrats are responsible for the lack of jobs, with their foot on the neck of business. Democrats are responsible for the slums of our big cities, which they have run for generations. Everywhere you see democrats in charge, you see poverty, hopelessness, dependency, and strife.
-
I suppose you could be right, not withstanding LBJ's famous comment that after passage, "We'll have those N-words voting democrat for 100 years."
Democrats are responsible for the destruction of the Black family, with their welfare policies. Democrats are responsible for the lack of jobs, with their foot on the neck of business. Democrats are responsible for the slums of our big cities, which they have run for generations. Everywhere you see democrats in charge, you see poverty, hopelessness, dependency, and strife.
I agree that Democrat's policies absolutely have been harmful to blacks. While I could name a few other factors, I do believe that this is substantially correct and as time goes by, becomes a larger and larger percentage of the problem.