Joe Biden is taking a ‘mulligan’ on racism

[SugarDaddy1]

Joe Biden is formalizing a custom Democrats have implemented in the last four or five years of racial do-overs. Democrats opposed President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement to end Jim Crow Laws.

Who needs the Klan when Democrats concocted a scheme to control, manipulate, and destroy black people through politics?

Who needs blatant, in-your-face racism, when corporate media, social media, and Big Tech can manufacture an endless supply of faux racism? They’ve conspired to create this false world and narrative that black people’s right to vote is dependent on stopping states from requiring identification to vote.

According to freedom fighter Biden, voter IDs are the new Jim Crow. Black people don’t have IDs. According to Biden, 2022 is really no different from 1942. Biden is JFK. Kamala Harris is MLK.

Source

 

[Rightguide]

The democrats are the Klan in sheep's clothing instead of their traditional sheets.

 

[pecksniff]

Who needs the Klan when Democrats concocted a scheme to control, manipulate, and destroy black people through politics?

That's some major dumbth even for you.

 

[bellisarius]

Yup, according to the democrats blacks and Latins are just too God damned stupid to obtain ID's.

They be the new overseers of the plantation.

 

[AlterErgo]

but the black Mayor of DC says you cant walk around in DC with a PHOTO ID and VAX CARD

 

[bellisarius]

but the black Mayor of DC says you cant walk around in DC with a PHOTO ID and VAX CARD

Obviously a white supremacist in black face.

 

[YDB95]

Democrats opposed...Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement to end Jim Crow Laws.

Guess again. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in both houses of Congress.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Guess again. More Democrats than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in both houses of Congress.

That's deceptive, "true" only because Democrats held large numerical majorities. Here's the reality:

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%)...

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%).

74% of the "no" vote was Democrat.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

 

[LittleDixie]

That's deceptive, "true" only because Democrats held large numerical majorities. Here's the reality:

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%)...

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%).

74% of the "no" vote was Democrat.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

If you want to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, check out the voting records for the other Civil Rights Acts.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1871 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1875 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1957 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1960 got over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1964 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1967 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (the final form of the bill only got 53% of the Republicans in the House).

 

[Bud_Spencer]

If you want to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, check out the voting records for the other Civil Rights Acts.

The Civil Rights act of 1866 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1871 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1875 got no Democratic support whatsoever in the House or Senate (only passed because of Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1957 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1960 got over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1964 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (it had overwhelming support by Republicans).
The Civil Rights act of 1967 got a little over half of the votes from Democrats in the House and Senate (the final form of the bill only got 53% of the Republicans in the House).

What a demonstration of the power of myth-making, the myth being the Democrats are the party of liberties, civil or ootherwise.

 

[pecksniff]

What a demonstration of the power of myth-making, the myth being the Democrats are the party of liberties, civil or ootherwise.

How is any of that relevant to the parties as they are now?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

How is any of that relevant to the parties as they are now?

Heh, like a Swiss watch, you are. "But, but...the parties switched places!!"

No, they're no different. Dems still run the plantation.

 

[pecksniff]

Heh, like a Swiss watch, you are. "But, but...the parties switched places!!"

No, they're no different. Dems still run the plantation.

Will you drop that incredibly stupid and offensive "plantation" bullshit once and for all? Yes, with regard to race relations if nothing else, the parties have switched places. The Dems are not trying to keep AAs in any kind of dependency, except in the sense that they want to persuade AAs to keep voting for them by making clear the truth, which is that it will do AAs no good at all, in the short run or the long, to vote Republican.

I once saw a cover of National Review, showing some young black men in the 'hood, with the caption "THE EMERGING REPUBLICAN MAJORITY." That was decades ago, and such development appears no closer now.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Will you drop that incredibly stupid and offensive "plantation" bullshit once and for all? Yes, with regard to race relations if nothing else, the parties have switched places. The Dems are not trying to keep AAs in any kind of dependency, except in the sense that they want to persuade AAs to keep voting for them by making clear the truth, which is that it will do AAs no good at all, in the short run or the long, to vote Republican.

It's like you speak a language where all the words are the same, but mean different things.

Of course the Democrats are keeping AAs in a state of depedency. They can read the exit polls as well as anyone, and they know that unmarried mothers are a huge constituency. So they subsidize bastardy. The result - near-obliteration of the black family - is how we got to thecurrent situation in cities...and whites are catching up, too.

That's the plantation, and yes I will keep using it, apt as it is.

 

[pecksniff]

It's like you speak a language where all the words are the same, but mean different things.

Of course the Democrats are keeping AAs in a state of depedency. They can read the exit polls as well as anyone, and they know that unmarried mothers are a huge constituency. So they subsidize bastardy. The result - near-obliteration of the black family - is how we got to thecurrent situation in cities...and whites are catching up, too.

That's the plantation, and yes I will keep using it, apt as it is.

Do you think this is the 1970s? Welfare was mostly abolished during the Clinton Administration. Nobody is "subsidizing bastardy." There are no welfare queens, if there ever were. There is no governmental incentive to unwed motherhood, if there ever was. Its prevalence among AAs is a cultural carryover of a time when the formation of stable black families was impossible, because everybody might be sold off separately at any time. That was a very long time ago, but cultural factors have a lot of intertia.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Do you think this is the 1970s? Welfare was mostly abolished during the Clinton Administration. There is no governmental incentive to unwed motherhood. Its prevalence among AAs is a cultural carryover of a time when the formation of stable black families was impossible, because everybody might be sold off separately at any time.

Statistics on unwed motherhood are not kid to that assertion. The rate of black kids born to single-parent (read: fatherless) households wasn't terribly high until we started to pay mothers ot to marry the fathers in the 1960s.

 

[pecksniff]

Statistics on unwed motherhood are not kid to that assertion. The rate of black kids born to single-parent (read: fatherless) households wasn't terribly high until we started to pay mothers ot to marry the fathers in the 1960s.

What does that matter now? There are no more welfare queens, if there ever were.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Black people vote the same way as americans.

 

[YDB95]

That's deceptive, "true" only because Democrats held large numerical majorities. Here's the reality:

With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%)...

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%).

74% of the "no" vote was Democrat.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

That "reality" is no less deceptive than the point I made. The real split was regional: across party lines, over 90% of Northern members voted yes and over 90% of Southern members voted no. Among Southern Democrats, 95% voted no, but among Southern Republicans? 100% were no. Every last one of them.

(Of course, there were only ten of them in the House and one in the Senate, but you're the one who wanted to talk percentages.)

And that 74% of the no vote from Democrats? As I tell you every time this comes up, they were all from states that hardly ever elect Democrats anymore (although Georgia became an exception in 2020), and that shift started immediately after the Act was passed. That is no coincidence.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That "reality" is no less deceptive than the point I made. The real split was regional: across party lines, over 90% of Northern members voted yes and over 90% of Southern members voted no. Among Southern Democrats, 95% voted no, but among Southern Republicans? 100% were no. Every last one of them.

(Of course, there were only ten of them in the House and one in the Senate, but you're the one who wanted to talk percentages.)

And that 74% of the no vote from Democrats? As I tell you every time this comes up, they were all from states that hardly ever elect Democrats anymore (although Georgia became an exception in 2020), and that shift started immediately after the Act was passed. That is no coincidence.

The next Presidential election was in 1968, and the South went mostly for George Wallace, a life-long Democrat who went Independent. The nail in the coffin for the Dems in South wasn't the CRA (why would racists go to the party that voted more heavily for the CRA than the Dems?), but McGovern. That was the point where the Dem Party turned into somethng else, and it wasn't about civil rights.

 

[pecksniff]

The next Presidential election was in 1968, and the South went mostly for George Wallace, a life-long Democrat who went Independent. The nail in the coffin for the Dems in South wasn't the CRA (why would racists go to the party that voted more heavily for the CRA than the Dems?), but McGovern. That was the point where the Dem Party turned into somethng else, and it wasn't about civil rights.

It was about ending the war.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

The democrats are the Klan in sheep's clothing instead of their traditional sheets.

You're a democrat without a sheep costume?

 

[WillJ8787]

That's some major dumbth even for you.

one would think Repubs could hold all offices including the Presidency if all this were true.....knee slapping chuckles.

 

[YDB95]

The next Presidential election was in 1968, and the South went mostly for George Wallace, a life-long Democrat who went Independent.

Yes, and who ran on an unabashedly anti-civil rights platform. The Southerners who voted for Goldwater in '64, by and large voted for Wallace in '68. As you will note, neither man ran as the Democratic nominee, in fact they both ran against him.

(why would racists go to the party that voted more heavily for the CRA than the Dems?),

(Because in the South, the Republicans voted more heavily AGAINST the CRA, as I noted above. That is also why there were a lot more of them beginning in 1964.)

but McGovern. That was the point where the Dem Party turned into somethng else, and it wasn't about civil rights.

Oh, but it was about civil rights. McGovern largely based his campaign on Black support - which he got, although it was just about the only support he got.