US Presidential Candidates

The E,

First, I never claimed that Republicans are paragons of virtue. I have cited several instances of Republican corruption, Oklahoma is the best example. I am currently arguing that Republicans are being demonized; meaning they are being portrayed as inhuman and evil. To that I argue that Democrats have much more pointing to their being evil over the past 50 years than Republicans.

Second, anecdotes are fine, E, but let's stick to research. Your selection paints a picture. Here's another, more organized picture.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Khalid.html
http://archive.adl.org/sih/sih-black_student_groups2.html
something more recent...
http://blog.adl.org/extremism/king-samir-shabazz-bomb-white-churches-and-kill-white-babies
Is this racism or is this something else? If it isn't racism, then what is it?

Your assertion that most racists must reside in the Republican Party appears to assume that only whites can be racist. So, since more older whites reside in the party than in the Democrats, Republicans must have more racists. Sloppy thinking here.

In the end anecdotes takes us nowhere as every group has more than a few idiots. Some are even eloquent. Let's stick to something more data driven.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390205/Whites-suffer-racism-blacks-Study-shows-white-people-believe-discriminated-against.html

Here is a study that touches on some of your points but puts data behind it.

The study shows the disparate views on anti-black racism since 1950. Whites as expected see this as less important or prevalent. Blacks see anti-black racism as more prevalent. The surprising thing is that both blacks and whites see a rise of anti-white racism. As one might expect whites rate this as much more prevalent than blacks.

The point of this study is that the blacks and whites being surveyed recognize that racism goes both ways.

let's address the argument that only whites can be racist in America. I find that argument silly, but following that argument, can only blacks be racist in Africa? Chinese in China? Indians in India? Utter nonsense because making that assumption is pointless and removes the moral responsibility from those that hold a minority of the power and wealth.

Perhaps because whites hold the majority of power and wealth worldwide, non-whites are incapable of asserting their bigotry upon whites? Again that's nonsense. To assume this, one must assume that non-whites are incapable of aggregating power and wealth because they are non-whites. The fundamental racism required to hold this view is staggering. Reagan called it the bigotry of low expectations. I simply call it racism.

As the anecdotes show, racism exists in all races. Because it does, assuming that since more older whites reside in the Republican Party and that only whites can be racist, it follows that there are more racist in the republican party is simply wrong. Both parties have their share of racists of every shade and hue. Redefining racism so the word becomes a weapon aimed only at one race is the essence of racism. I find that abhorrent.

Well, obviously the solution to anti-black racism is anti-white racism. Just ask Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and their supporters.

Ten years ago racism was well on its way to a quiet and well-deserved death. Now it's been resurrected and spread everywhere.
---------------------
Imposing your idea of "equality" on people is every bit as evil as somebody else imposing inequality on them.

PeterZ wrote:The E,

First, I never claimed that Republicans are paragons of virtue. I have cited several instances of Republican corruption, Oklahoma is the best example. I am currently arguing that Republicans are being demonized; meaning they are being portrayed as inhuman and evil. To that I argue that Democrats have much more pointing to their being evil over the past 50 years than Republicans.

You were specifically calling out democrats as being more racist than republicans, which is not supported by the research.

Second, anecdotes are fine, E, but let's stick to research. Your selection paints a picture. Here's another, more organized picture.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Khalid.html
http://archive.adl.org/sih/sih-black_student_groups2.html
something more recent...
http://blog.adl.org/extremism/king-samir-shabazz-bomb-white-churches-and-kill-white-babies
Is this racism or is this something else? If it isn't racism, then what is it?

I know it is one thing: Irrelevant to the discussion. The original starting point for this digression here was that Democrats are better at getting minorities to vote for them than Republicans are. My hypothesis is that the latent racism (or, in some cases, the very overt racism) of the republican party is to blame; that the fact that republicans have done little to dispell the notion that the GOP is a party of white, male, affluent people is doing a lot to make them unattractive to people not belonging (or aspiring to belong) to those groups.

That racism and prejudice can be practiced by everyone, regardless of skin color or religious affiliation, isn't relevant to this.

Your assertion that most racists must reside in the Republican Party appears to assume that only whites can be racist. So, since more older whites reside in the party than in the Democrats, Republicans must have more racists. Sloppy thinking here.

You got me there. Let me rephrase.
It is inaccurate to say that the average republican is a white supremacist. However, the reverse is definitely true: White supremacists are, on average, republican. (Not actually by a lot, going by this data, but still. There's a significant difference here, and it doesn't look good for the GOP; it certainly doesn't look good for the portion of the GOP that actually supports Trump because they believe in him, not because he's not Clinton)

There, happy? Can we move on now?

In the end anecdotes takes us nowhere as every group has more than a few idiots. Some are even eloquent. Let's stick to something more data driven.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390205/Whites-suffer-racism-blacks-Study-shows-white-people-believe-discriminated-against.html

Here is a study that touches on some of your points but puts data behind it.

The study shows the disparate views on anti-black racism since 1950. Whites as expected see this as less important or prevalent. Blacks see anti-black racism as more prevalent. The surprising thing is that both blacks and whites see a rise of anti-white racism. As one might expect whites rate this as much more prevalent than blacks.

The point of this study is that the blacks and whites being surveyed recognize that racism goes both ways.[/quote]

Right, let's put aside the fact that this isn't a survey about how prevalent different kinds of racism are (and how this is not relevant to the points I was making), but that it asked about the perceptions of racism among people. Not how the situation actually is, but what it is perceived to be like.

First though, let's discard the Daily Fail and go to the real source, which can be found here.

Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing wrote:We suggest that these trends epitomize a more general mindset gaining traction among Whites in contemporary America: the notion that Whites have replaced Blacks as the primary victims of discrimination.
This emerging perspective is particularly notable because by nearly any metric—from employment to police treatment, loan rates to education—statistics continue to indicate drastically poorer outcomes for Black than White Americans.

(Citations omitted)

We propose that Whites’ belief about the increasing prevalence of anti-White bias reflects a view of racism as a zero-sum game, as evident in the comment above by Senator Sessions during a recent Supreme Court nomination hearing, which can be summed up as ‘‘less against you means more against me.’’
Indeed, previous research suggests that White Americans perceive increases in racial equality as threatening their dominant position in American society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), with Whites likely to perceive that actions taken to improve the welfare of minority groups must come at their expense (Eibach & Keegan, 2006).

We expected Whites to view racism as a zero-sum game, such that decreases in perceived anti-Black racism over the past six decades would be associated with increases in perceived anti-White racism.
Although previous research has not examined whether lower status groups view racism in zero-sum terms, we expected that Blacks might be less likely to perceive gains for Blacks as losses for Whites—perhaps due to a view that the permanent high status of Whites (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) causes the magnitude of racial disparity to be so great that gains by Blacks do little to affect Whites. Most important, we explored the novel prediction that these changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism would be extreme enough that many Whites would view anti-White bias as the bigger societal problem.

So, what are the actual conclusions drawn here? Can this survey be used as a data point to show that anti-white sentiment is on the rise?

The answer, of course, is no. The conclusion the paper draws, and the question it intended to answer, do not lend themselves to that.
The conclusion drawn is that, as society becomes more equal, Whites increasingly see themselves as victims of racism; it doesn't matter whether or not their actual status changes, the fact that they're not as far ahead as they used to be is sufficient to create a feeling of being discriminated against. (I would also add that, regardless of the result, the sample size is pretty low)

PeterZ wrote:let's address the argument that only whites can be racist in America.

noone was making that argument, but alright.

<long diatribe snipped>

Again, not the argument I was making, but whatever. Anyone can be racist. This is not under dispute. However, in US politics, black or hispanic or asian people being racist is not as big a problem as white people being racist is. Racist members of minorities simply do not have the same avenues to power that white racists have. Let's look at the Reuters poll again: It shows that the average Trump or Cruz voter, when asked about their attitudes towards black people, are far more likely to have a negative view of them than Clinton or Kasich supporters. Because of this, is it any wonder that members of minorities are having a hard time finding a home amongst republicans? Is it any wonder that actual, honest-to-god racists are having an easier time finding a home in the GOP? Is it any wonder that GOP policies are, on average, not really taking the needs and perspectives of minorities into account?

The E wrote:You were specifically calling out democrats as being more racist than republicans, which is not supported by the research.

No. I am asserting that Democrat policies have a disparate impact on blacks as proven over the past 50 years. Disparate impact has been used as a reflection of racist outcomes, not necessarily racist motives.

The E wrote:Again, not the argument I was making, but whatever. Anyone can be racist. This is not under dispute. However, in US politics, black or hispanic or asian people being racist is not as big a problem as white people being racist is. Racist members of minorities simply do not have the same avenues to power that white racists have. Let's look at the Reuters poll again: It shows that the average Trump or Cruz voter, when asked about their attitudes towards black people, are far more likely to have a negative view of them than Clinton or Kasich supporters. Because of this, is it any wonder that members of minorities are having a hard time finding a home amongst republicans? Is it any wonder that actual, honest-to-god racists are having an easier time finding a home in the GOP? Is it any wonder that GOP policies are, on average, not really taking the needs and perspectives of minorities into account?

I would argue that some of these metrics do not necessarily reflect racism. They do reflect stereotypes that may or may not have any truth behind them. The hard working question and pulling themselves out of poverty are cases in point. Blacks receive welfare and are mired in poverty in disproportionately high levels than whites when compared to their representation in the total population. The stereotype assumes that since blacks overwhelmingly support the Party that make getting out of poverty more difficult, they really don't want to break out of poverty.

That stereotype is rubbish, of course. Yet, blacks do support such a party overwhelmingly. They support the party that routinely kills charter school and school choice measures at a local level that the overwhelming majority of blacks favor. Supporting people that continue to maintain or enforce the barriers which make escaping poverty so difficult can be seen as not being sufficiently motivated to escape poverty. Is reaching that conclusion based on the facts on the ground racist? I would say not necessarily. Some are racist, but most of those respondents do not reach that conclusion based on race.

When we take in the response to the question of blacks being more unintelligent and intelligent, we see that the overall view is that about 15% of both Republicans and Democrats are racist bigots. Between the margin of error, the social desirability bias and changes in make-up of the GOP over time, making any firm assertion that there are more racists in the Republican Party is dubious at best.

The truly damning question to me was the one regarding inter racial marriage. That shows a degree of discomfort by whites to blacks that supports most of what you contend. Yet even here the data is insufficiently clear. The responses to whether whites feel close to blacks had become almost identical until 2008 when it diverged again. A similar parallel is seen in the choice of neighborhoods. Taken as a whole, these three responses do reflect some emotional discomfort by white Republicans to blacks. But how much of it is based on race and how much is simply correlated to race?

Blacks vote almost as a unified block in favor of progressive candidates. Yet, those candidates have supported policies that have indeed harmed blacks. Republicans have fought against those harmful policies, but have been branded as racist for that attempt. Republicans are demonized for trying to protect ourselves AND minorities against bad these policies. When the respondents share that discomfort is it principally because of race? I suspect that most white Republicans understand that 90% of blacks will believe the demonized characterization of whites. That being true, why would one be confortable when a close relative is marrying into a group that overwhelmingly believes all manner of demonized characterizations about you and your family not because you are white, but because your are Republican.

Democrats won't have this concern. Their responses reflect about 20% negative. That's consistent with the 15% more unintelligent response. They are racist bigots anyway.

The one response that holds my analysis together is the first one. Would you vote for a black man as President? The responses were identical with only a couple of exceptional periods. That remains true until 20 years ago when that number dropped to about 5% or Republicans. it took Democrats 12 years to as color blind in the ballot box.

Republicans response to this question supports my contention that factors other than race are at play in differences between white Democrats and white Republicans. Assuming that those responses MUST be driven by racism is simply wrong. Agreeing that demonization of Republicans is appropriate because of these finds is equally wrong.

1 Everything???
Many things in America *are* still focused on race (Race),
and denying it is a serious error.
Today the Democrats look through that "prism" from the
opposite direction from before ... say, 1933.

2.1 Yes, as many people in the 1920s were,
and she was as wrong about that as the others were.
But Eugenics was never her #1 thing.
Providing Pregnancy Prevention ("Birth Control") to those
women who wanted it was her Major Policy.
She was correct about that one, and that is her legacy.

2.2 She was focused on all women, especially Americans.
Birth Control, then abortions if the Birth Control didn't
work, but only if a woman needed to not bear another baby.
In that woman's own judgement, of course.
Sanger would not force either abortions or Birth Control
upon any woman. (For one thing, she lacked the force.)

2.3 I don't have data on that. I do know that poor women
have less access to Birth Control than better-off ones,
and are more vulnerable to being denied it. Those employers
who would deny Insurance Coverage for The Pill, touch those
with less money *much* more than those who have more money.
Less Birth Control means more abortions, just about always.

Wait a minute ...
are you bringing anti-abortion politics into this?

3 "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" is a fallacy.

4 Lets compute ... 1866 in, 1964-8 out, yes,
about 100 years, give or take a couple.

5 The Dixiecrats were indeed powerful in the Democratic Party
until 1964, when they were beaten (by a Northern Democrat -
Republican coalition, of course). Soon the Dixiecrats began
to leave ... and join the Republicans.
5.1 It took the Republicans more than 100 years to accept
KKK members, and now even David Duke, *into* their party,
but now they have done that!
The parties have reversed positions on race.
All minorities have been helped by Democratic policies,
but of course those who were helped the most no longer live
in the inner cities. Most Republican policies have beem
harmful, to the poor and to everyone else except the richest.

Giuliani and Bloomburg are subtle men, whose policies have
been better considered than most modern Republicans.

6 Actually I wish to trot out Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon
Johnson. Of course, Thurmond joined the Republicans,
and Robert Byrd stayed a Democrat. (I'm not sure what
you intend to prove by trotting him out.)
And then there was George Wallace, who went over to
the anti-racist side when the blacks got the vote.

Bottom Line, the Historical Record before 1933 no longer
matters except as history. Recently, it has been the Democrats
who fight racism, and the Republicans who let it gain strength
while talking about other things (when they are not actively
supporting it).

The Demonization of "the Republican Party" as today's racists
had indeed happened, because the Republicans have supported
policies that let racism grow stronger.

HTM, PHL

PeterZ wrote:
1 Sorry, Howard, but history shows the Democrat Party focus on view everything through the prism of race is alive and well.

2.1 Wasn't Marg(a)ret Sanger a proponent of eugenics?
2.2 Did she not think that more blacks should have abortions
to control their population?
2.3 Doesn't the organization she was founded perform
abortions on blacks in disparate proportion to the
population of blacks by a factor 2-3?

3 Also, are the inner cities not in shambles? Do they not have almost exclusively Democrat governance for in excess of 5 decades and in some cases a century? Do these policies not have a disparately large impact on blacks? New York city is the brightest exception between Giuliani and Bloomberg.

4 Democrats finally kicked the KKK out of their party 100 years after they joined.

5 All in all the Democrats have had more than a century of supporting a bigoted policy. They continue to focus on race but appear unable to help those races at whom they purport to target that help. The best they can do is blame the Republicans because those racist bastards that left the Democrats voted in the only other party available.
5.1 It did not take Republicans nearly 100 years to
disavow and repudiate David Duke and the KKK.

6 If you wish to trot out Strom Thurman(d), I will trot out Robert Byrd.

Bottom line is that for the demonization of republicans as racist, Democrats have a greater demonstrable record both historically and in the much more recent past.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:1 Everything???
Many things in America *are* still focused on race (Race),
and denying it is a serious error.
Today the Democrats look through that "prism" from the
opposite direction from before ... say, 1933.

Your hearts are in the right place, but many of your policies are not helping.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:2.1 Yes, as many people in the 1920s were,
and she was as wrong about that as the others were.
But Eugenics was never her #1 thing.
Providing Pregnancy Prevention ("Birth Control") to those
women who wanted it was her Major Policy.
She was correct about that one, and that is her legacy.

Agreed. She was racist but everyone was back then.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:2.2 She was focused on all women, especially Americans.
Birth Control, then abortions if the Birth Control didn't
work, but only if a woman needed to not bear another baby.
In that woman's own judgement, of course.
Sanger would not force either abortions or Birth Control
upon any woman. (For one thing, she lacked the force.)

No issues on this.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:2.3 I don't have data on that. I do know that poor women
have less access to Birth Control than better-off ones,
and are more vulnerable to being denied it. Those employers
who would deny Insurance Coverage for The Pill, touch those
with less money *much* more than those who have more money.
Less Birth Control means more abortions, just about always.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Here is some data. I am not advocating criminalizing abortions. I am asserting that while 13% of the population, black women represent 36% of all abortions. That black women avail themselves that much more often to abortions speaks to the dire straits they find themselves in. Largely due to policies of Democrats who govern those inner cities where they reside.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Wait a minute ...
are you bringing anti-abortion politics into this?

No. Citing that as a measure of how badly blacks on the whole have been screwed.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:3 "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" is a fallacy.

I am not citing causation. I asked who was responsible for the governance of those inner cities. Democrats were. Whether their policies were directly responsible for that mess or their incompetence and corruption were was asserted. That these failures had a disparate impact on blacks is undisputable, Howard.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:4 Lets compute ... 1866 in, 1964-8 out, yes,
about 100 years, give or take a couple.

Agreed. The math works.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:5 The Dixiecrats were indeed powerful in the Democratic Party
until 1964, when they were beaten (by a Northern Democrat -
Republican coalition, of course). Soon the Dixiecrats began
to leave ... and join the Republicans.

Yes, one of my beefs has been that republicans have become more of the anti-Democrats than anything else. No true sense of their own principles beyond Reagan.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:5.1 It took the Republicans more than 100 years to accept
KKK members, and now even David Duke, *into* their party,
but now they have done that!
The parties have reversed positions on race.
All minorities have been helped by Democratic policies,
but of course those who were helped the most no longer live
in the inner cities. Most Republican policies have beem
harmful, to the poor and to everyone else except the richest.

Giuliani and Bloomburg are subtle men, whose policies have
been better considered than most modern Republicans.

Nonsense Howard. The statistic most powerfully correlated to poverty is the single parent household. In 1960 22% of black children were in single parent households. Since 1990 that percentage has fluctuated around 54%. That statistic suggests that more blacks have been harmed than helped even if what you assert about those blacks helped escaping the inner city is true.

Agreed. Giuliani and Bloomberg were extremely competent mayors. How many Republican or Independent mayors beyond these two stalwarts had a chance to govern major Cities? Indianapolis, Miami, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego have had republicans as mayors for some significant amount of time in the recent past. The links below show that only Indianapolis and Miami are in the top 20 for most violent crime per 100,000 residents based on 2013 data. The remaining 18 cities are governed by Democrats and have been almost exclusively for decades.

The Republican governed cities tend not top charts in crime. These policies appear to be working better than Democrat ones.
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-urban-republican-mayors.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2014)

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:
6 Actually I wish to trot out Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon
Johnson. Of course, Thurmond joined the Republicans,
and Robert Byrd stayed a Democrat. (I'm not sure what
you intend to prove by trotting him out.)
And then there was George Wallace, who went over to
the anti-racist side when the blacks got the vote.

Bottom Line, the Historical Record before 1933 no longer
matters except as history. Recently, it has been the Democrats
who fight racism, and the Republicans who let it gain strength
while talking about other things (when they are not actively
supporting it).

So you assert, but results show a different picture. Where Democrats have governed and blacks still reside, the plight of blacks is worse now than in 1964. Is the deterioration of the black condition a result of Democrat policies or Democrat incompetence? It hardly matters, Democrat governance has a disparate negative impact on blacks whether by intent or consistent and repeated accidents.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:The Demonization of "the Republican Party" as today's racists
had indeed happened, because the Republicans have supported
policies that let racism grow stronger.

HTM, PHL

No, they haven't. They have fought policies that have led to a deterioration of the minority condition. We Republicans have been demonized because Democrats in positions of authority have no one else to blame but themselves for their failures. Demonizing Republicans with the assistance of the press have been a successful to keep people from questioning just how effective those policies actually were.

In your post you agree that Republicans have been demonized. You assert that it is justified because of policies Republicans have supported. Treating people with whom you disagree as inhuman and evil simply because you disagree serves no purpose, Howard. I disagree with most progressive policies because they don't work. Most Republicans disagree with those policies for the same reasons. By accepting the demonization of those like myself, you are tacitly agreeing that I am inhuman and evil.

If you indeed believe this, then why are we even communicating?

I have tried to edit this to make it more readable,
but it is so complex that I fail, and now I am timing-out.
HTM

Replies interspirsed, and at bottom. HTM

PeterZ wrote:Your hearts are in the right place, but many of your policies are not helping.

2.1 (Sanger ... HTM snipped)
Agreed. She was racist but everyone was back then. PZ

2.2 {snip} HTM

No issues on this. PZ

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:2.3 I don't have data on that. I do know that poor women
have less access to Birth Control than better-off ones,
and are more vulnerable to being denied it. Those employers
who would deny Insurance Coverage for The Pill, touch those
with less money *much* more than those who have more money.
Less Birth Control means more abortions, just about always.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Here is some data.

NOTE by HTM: I deem this site to be unbelievable.
========================================================

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:3 "Post hoc ergo prompter hoc" is a fallacy.

I am not citing causation. I asked who was responsible for the governance of those inner cities. Democrats were. Whether their policies were directly responsible for that mess or their incompetence and corruption were was asserted. That these failures had a disparate impact on blacks is undisputable, Howard.

I disagree with your understanding of "that mess"
and with your measure of the size of it.
I do dispute your whole argument, and many parts of it.

Furthermore,
I find your use of "undisputable" to be overly optimistic.
I do not deny that you will dispute *my* arguments.

4 Lets compute ... HTM
Agreed. The math works.
PZ

5 The Dixiecrats were indeed powerful in the Democratic Party
until 1964, when they were beaten (by a Northern Democrat -
Republican coalition, of course). Soon the Dixiecrats began
to leave ... and join the Republicans.
HTM

Yes, one of my beefs has been that republicans have become more of the anti-Democrats than anything else. No true sense of their own principles beyond Reagan.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:5.1 It took the Republicans more than 100 years to accept
KKK members, and now even David Duke, *into* their party,
but now they have done that!
The parties have reversed positions on race.
All minorities have been helped by Democratic policies,
but of course those who were helped the most no longer live
in the inner cities. Most Republican policies have beem
harmful, to the poor and to everyone else except the richest.

Giuliani and Bloomburg are subtle men, whose policies have
been better considered than most modern Republicans.

HTM PS they are also willing to work with Democrats!


Nonsense Howard. The statistic most powerfully correlated to poverty is the single parent household. In 1960 22% of black children were in single parent households. Since 1990 that percentage has fluctuated around 54%. That statistic suggests that more blacks have been harmed than helped even if what you assert about those blacks helped escaping the inner city is true.

Agreed. Giuliani and Bloomberg were extremely competent mayors. How many Republican or Independent mayors beyond these two stalwarts had a chance to govern major Cities? Indianapolis, Miami, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City and San Diego have had republicans as mayors for some significant amount of time in the recent past. The links below show that only Indianapolis and Miami are in the top 20 for most violent crime per 100,000 residents based on 2013 data. The remaining 18 cities are governed by Democrats and have been almost exclusively for decades.

The Republican governed cities tend not top charts in crime. These policies appear to be working better than Democrat ones.
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-urban-republican-mayors.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2014)

PZ


6 Actually I wish to trot out Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon
Johnson. Of course, Thurmond joined the Republicans,
and Robert Byrd stayed a Democrat. (I'm not sure what
you intend to prove by trotting him out.)
And then there was George Wallace, who went over to
the anti-racist side when the blacks got the vote.

Bottom Line, the Historical Record before 1933 no longer
matters except as history. Recently, it has been the Democrats
who fight racism, and the Republicans who let it gain strength
while talking about other things (when they are not actively
supporting it).
HTM


So you assert, but results show a different picture. Where Democrats have governed and blacks still reside, the plight of blacks is worse now than in 1964. Is the deterioration of the black condition a result of Democrat policies or Democrat incompetence? It hardly matters, Democrat governance has a disparate negative impact on blacks whether by intent or consistent and repeated accidents.

HTM (too many quotes embedded)
The Demonization of "the Republican Party" as today's racists
had indeed happened, because the Republicans have supported
policies that let racism grow stronger.

HTM, PHL


No, they haven't. They have fought policies that have led to a deterioration of the minority condition. We Republicans have been demonized because Democrats in positions of authority have no one else to blame but themselves for their failures. Demonizing Republicans with the assistance of the press have been a successful to keep people from questioning just how effective those policies actually were.

In your post you agree that Republicans have been demonized. You assert that it is justified because of policies Republicans have supported. Treating people with whom you disagree as inhuman and evil simply because you disagree serves no purpose, Howard. I disagree with most progressive policies because they don't work. Most Republicans disagree with those policies for the same reasons. By accepting the demonization of those like myself, you are tacitly agreeing that I am inhuman and evil.

If you indeed believe this, then why are we even communicating?

No, not inhuman, merely mistaken - very much so, IMNSHO!

But we communicate because we reason similarly, and
agree on so very much, despite everything else!
which is why I left so much unsnipped.

HTM

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:In your post you agree that Republicans have been demonized. You assert that it is justified because of policies Republicans have supported. Treating people with whom you disagree as inhuman and evil simply because you disagree serves no purpose, Howard. I disagree with most progressive policies because they don't work. Most Republicans disagree with those policies for the same reasons. By accepting the demonization of those like myself, you are tacitly agreeing that I am inhuman and evil.

PeterZ wrote:If you indeed believe this, then why are we even communicating?

No, not inhuman, merely mistaken - very much so, IMNSHO!

But we communicate because we reason similarly, and
agree on so very much, despite everything else!
which is why I left so much unsnipped.

HTM

You assert that Republicans have supported policies that promote racism. Please back that statement up. I contend that misguided Democrat policies have made the minority condition worse. I have provided evidence why I believe what I do.

You have further asserted that I am somehow not inhuman and nor evil but simply mistaken. How different am I than other Republicans, Howard? Am I so different that I am should not be demonized but other who believe as I do should be? Do not those that believe as I do also agree with much more than we disagree?

If I am mistaken, the proper course of action is to persuade.....and open yourself up to be persuaded in turn. Last I checked you were not God and were not perfect. In this you could be mistaken.

Agreeing that Republicans have been demonized and further contending that they are justly demonized for their disagreement with accepted beliefs is the essence of bigotry, Howard. You are not a bigot, Howard. Supporting bigoted behavior is so far beneath you its not even funny.

PeterZ wrote:You assert that Republicans have supported policies that promote racism. Please back that statement up. I contend that misguided Democrat policies have made the minority condition worse. I have provided evidence why I believe what I do.

Item 1: The GOP happily jumping on the bandwagon of anti-immigrant fear mongering whenever possible.
Item 2: Giving a platform to concerns over President Obama's citizenship
Item 3: Using the spectre of voting fraud as a tool to enact rules that make it harder for minority voters to gain the right to vote (source)
Item 4: The enthusiastic endorsement of the various anti-immigrant, anti-muslim policies of one Donald Trump by the party's base
Item 5: The southern strategy
Item 6: A correlation exists between restrictions on the vote, presence of minorities, and republican leadership (source)
Item 7: A whole collection of casual racism from prominent GOP figures

Again: The GOP is a predominantly white, predominantly old, predominantly affluent party. This is going to bite them in the long run. In 2012, the GOP realized this, yet they were unable to respond in any meaningful way to the influx of borderline (and not so borderline) racist voices in the runup to and in the wake of Trump.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:You assert that Republicans have supported policies that promote racism. Please back that statement up. I contend that misguided Democrat policies have made the minority condition worse. I have provided evidence why I believe what I do.

The E wrote:Item 1: The GOP happily jumping on the bandwagon of anti-immigrant fear mongering whenever possible.

Bullshit. The focus has been on illegal immigrants.

The E wrote:Item 2: Giving a platform to concerns over President Obama's citizenship.

He stated in his autobiography " Dreams of My Father" that he was born in Kenya. Was he lying then and not now? This wasn't something created by Republicans.

The E wrote:Item 3: Using the spectre of voting fraud as a tool to enact rules that make it harder for minority voters to gain the right to vote (source).

All we are asking for is just the same sorts of protections Germany has. Implementation of those policies must be applied as fairly as possible. Also, voter fraud is far less important that election fraud. Still, every bit counts.

The E wrote:Item 4: The enthusiastic endorsement of the various anti-immigrant, anti-muslim policies of one Donald Trump by the party's base.

That we apply some standards for who we accept into our country is prudent. Trump and most Republicans I know are looking to apply adequate screening process. If you think that's unreasonable, there is really no point in further discussion.

The E wrote:Item 5: [url]=https://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/08/01/888775/-A-design-feature]The southern strategy[/url].

Yup, Republicans sought to gain the southern vote. They did not change their egalitarian policies as a result. Neither did the Democrats change their fundamental view that the races were inherently different.

The South is much more egalitarian than it was. Democrats have insinuated their brand of racially targeted policies in the Northern inner cities. The result? One example is that Detroit was one of the richest cities in the US after WWII, now it is one of the poorest major cities.

Robert Byrd Democrat and KKK

Wiki wrote:In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][13]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[19] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[13] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[13]

In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:


I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[13][20]

In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[21] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[13]

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[22] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[23] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[13]

Sure he made a mistake. Democrats forgave him, but demonize others that disagree with them and those others do not even come close to this level of racism. they continue to demonize people just as Byrd and the KKK demonized blacks.

The E wrote:Item 6: A correlation exists between restrictions on the vote, presence of minorities, and republican leadership ([url]=https://thinkprogress.org/study-more-voter-suppression-laws-are-proposed-when-more-racial-minorities-vote-8498306871c0#.g7eopezhk]source[/url]).

Requiring an ID to cote is racist? Then Germany is racist. What is the difeerence between Germany's requirement than this?

The E wrote:Item 7: A whole collection of casual racism from prominent GOP figures

Again: The GOP is a predominantly white, predominantly old, predominantly affluent party. This is going to bite them in the long run. In 2012, the GOP realized this, yet they were unable to respond in any meaningful way to the influx of borderline (and not so borderline) racist voices in the runup to and in the wake of Trump.

That's right, having some control about who actually comes into our country is somehow racist. Bullshit. have a screening process. Limit immigration to amounts we can practically integrate. If those policies are racist, then racism has been redefined too broadly to be useful. Well, its only use appears to be as a cudgel for the left to silence those with whom they disagree.