20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

[roots69]

Wake up call!! I know y'all ain't watch or read this!! Oh well?? Have fun??

pander
[ pan-der ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR pander ON THESAURUS.COM
noun Also pan·der·er.
a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse; procurer; pimp.

a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.
a go-between in amorous intrigues.
verb (used without object)
to act as a pander; cater basely:to pander to the vile tastes of vulgar persons.
verb (used with object)
to act as a pander for.







20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party


20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party
For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena. These are sins America itself must atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged “conservative” misdeeds — say McCarthyism — are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake that liberals make is failing to fight “hard enough” for their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself. -- Jonah Goldberg

1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln's election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): "Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor."

5) The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.

6) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): "The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure."

7) The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.


8) Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than 100,000 Japanese Americans being put into "bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."

9) Alger Hiss Convicted Of Perjury (1950): Hiss, who helped advise FDR at Yalta and was strongly defended by the Left, turned out to be a Soviet spy. He was convicted of perjury in 1950 (Sadly, the statute of limitations on espionage had run out), but was defended by liberals for decades until the Verona papers proved so conclusively that he was guilty that even most his fellow liberals couldn't continue to deny it.

10) The West Virgina Democrat primary is rigged by John F. Kennedy (1960): From an interview with the late, great Robert Novak.

John Hawkins: You also said that without question, John F. Kennedy rigged the West Virginia Democratic primary in (1960), but that the Wall Street Journal killed the story. Do you think that sort of thing is still occurring with great regularity and do you wish the Journal had reported the story when it happened?

Robert Novak: In my opinion, they should have. They sent two reporters down to West Virginia for six weeks and they came back with a carefully documented story on voter fraud in West Virginia, buying votes, and how he beat Humphrey in the primary and therefore got the nomination. But, Ed Kilgore, the President of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative man, said it wasn’t the business of the Wall Street Journal to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party and he killed the story. That story didn’t come out for many, many years — 30-40 years. It was kept secret all that time.


11) The Bay of Pigs (1961): After training a Cuban militia to overthrow Castro, Kennedy got cold feet and didn't give the men all the air support they were promised. As a result, they were easily defeated by Castro's men and today, Cuba is still ruled by a hostile, anti-American dictatorship.

12) Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama's notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.

13) Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

14) Escalation In Vietnam (1964): Lyndon Johnson dramatically escalated our troops’ presence in Vietnam while he simultaneously put political restrictions in place that made the war unwinnable. As a result, 58,000 Americans died in a war that ultimately achieved none of its aims.

15) Chappaquiddick (1969): The Democrats’ beloved "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Ted Kennedy ran off the road into a tidal pool with passenger Mary Jo Kopechne in the car. Kennedy swam free and then spent 9 hours plotting how he would reveal the news to the press while she slowly suffocated to death.

16) Democrats Deliver South Vietnam To The North (1975): "In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies." -- Newt Gingrich


17) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): 52 Americans were held hostage by the government of Iran for 444 days. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous, failed rescue attempt, the hostages were finally released after Ronald Reagan's inaugural address.

18) Bill Clinton turns down Osama Bin Laden (1996): In Bill Clinton's own words, "'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.' — Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan’s offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996." Had Bill Clinton accepted Sudan's offer, 9/11 would have likely never happened.

19) Bill Clinton was impeached (1998): Clinton became only the 2nd President in American history to be impeached after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

20) America loses its AAA credit rating (2011): The United States was first given its AAA credit in 1917, but it couldn’t survive Barack Obama's record breaking spending. In 2011, America lost its AAA credit rating.

 

[sammyjax]

Should we vote republican?

 

[roots69]

This won't get read!! It's a long read!! We gotta read and research, those who want our vote and support!! Well, atleast we thought!!


The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained



The 1994 “tough on crime” law remains a big topic of debate in 2020 Democratic debates. Here’s what you need to know.

By German Lopez on June 20, 2019 9:00 am


Former Vice President Joe Biden campaigns in Iowa in June 2019. Scott Olson/Getty Images
Part of
Vox’s guide to where 2020 Democrats stand on policy
One of the most controversial criminal justice issues in the 2020 Democratic primary is a “tough on crime” law passed 25 years ago — and authored by current poll frontrunner Joe Biden.


If you ask some criminal justice reform activists, the 1994 crime law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, which was meant to reverse decades of rising crime, was one of the key contributors to mass incarceration in the 1990s. They say it led to more prison sentences, more prison cells, and more aggressive policing — especially hurting black and brown Americans, who are disproportionately likely to be incarcerated.

If you ask Biden, that’s not true at all. The law, he argued at a recent campaign stop, had little impact on incarceration, which largely happens at the state level. As recently as 2016, Biden defended the law, arguing it “restored American cities” following an era of high crime and violence.

The truth, it turns out, is somewhere in the middle.

The 1994 crime law was certainly meant to increase incarceration in an attempt to crack down on crime, but its implementation doesn’t appear to have done much in that area. And while the law had many provisions that are now considered highly controversial, some portions, including the Violence Against Women Act and the assault weapons ban, are fairly popular among Democrats.

That’s how politicians like Biden, as well as fellow presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), can now justify their votes for the law — by pointing to the provisions that weren’t “tough on crime.”

But with Biden’s criminal justice record coming under scrutiny as he runs for president, it’s the mass incarceration provisions that are drawing particular attention as a key example of how Biden helped fuel the exact same policies that criminal justice reformers are trying to reverse. For some Democrats, the 1994 law is exhibit A for why Biden can’t be trusted to do the right thing on criminal justice issues should he become president.

The 1994 crime law had a lot in it
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, now known as the 1994 crime law, was the result of years of work by Biden, who oversaw the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, and other Democrats. It was an attempt to address a big issue in America at the time: Crime, particularly violent crime, had been rising for decades, starting in the 1960s but continuing, on and off, through the 1990s (in part due to the crack cocaine epidemic).

Politically, the legislation was also a chance for Democrats — including the recently elected president, Bill Clinton — to wrestle the issue of crime away from Republicans. Polling suggested Americans were very concerned about high crime back then. And especially after George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election in part by painting Dukakis as “soft on crime,” Democrats were acutely worried that Republicans were beating them on the issue.

Biden reveled in the politics of the 1994 law, bragging after it passed that “the liberal wing of the Democratic Party” was now for “60 new death penalties,” “70 enhanced penalties,” “100,000 cops,” and “125,000 new state prison cells.”

The law imposed tougher prison sentences at the federal level and encouraged states to do the same. It provided funds for states to build more prisons, aimed to fund 100,000 more cops, and backed grant programs that encouraged police officers to carry out more drug-related arrests — an escalation of the war on drugs.

At the same time, the law included several measures that would be far less controversial among Democrats today. The Violence Against Women Act provided more resources to crack down on domestic violence and rape. A provision helped fund background checks for guns. The law encouraged states to back drug courts, which attempt to divert drug offenders from prison into treatment, and also helped fund some addiction treatment.

All of this was an old-school attempt to attract votes from lawmakers who otherwise might be skeptical — and it succeeded at winning over some Democrats. Bernie Sanders, for one, criticized an earlier version of the bill, written in 1991 but never passed, for supporting mass incarceration, quipping, “What do we have to do, put half the country behind bars?” But he voted for the 1994 law, explaining at the time, “I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act.”

Biden also opposed some parts of the law, even while he helped write it. In 1994, he reportedly called a three-strikes provision — that escalated prison sentences up to life for some repeat offenses — “wacko” and illustrative of Congress’ “tough on crime” attitude.

But the Democratic authors of the law were clear about their intentions: supporting a more punitive criminal justice system to rebuke criticisms that they were “soft on crime.” (The legislation wasn’t enough for some Republicans in Congress, who complained the bill included too much social spending and pledged to pass tougher laws as part of their 1994 campaign to take back the House.) On the website for his 2008 presidential campaign, Biden referred to the 1994 crime law as the “Biden Crime Law” and bragged that it encouraged states to effectively increase their prison sentences by paying them to build more prisons — a direct endorsement of more incarceration.

Asked about Biden’s support for the law, the Biden campaign pointed to provisions like the Violence Against Women Act, the 10-year assault weapons ban, firearm background check funding, money for police, support for addiction treatment, and a “safety valve” that let a limited number of low-level first-time drug offenders avoid mandatory minimum sentences. They also cited some of his past criticisms of punitive sentences, including the three-strikes measure, and pointed out that a Republican-controlled Congress later cut funding drastically for drug courts.

In a 2016 interview with CNBC, Biden said that there were parts of the law he’d change, but argued that “by and large what it really did, it restored American cities.” (Although crime has dropped since the ’90s, the research suggests punitive criminal justice policies played at best a small, partial role in that decrease.)


Biden also took credit for the law: “As a matter of fact, I drafted the bill, if you remember.”

The 1994 law didn’t really cause mass incarceration
In a 2019 context, the 1994 law has been criticized for contributing to mass incarceration. This goes back to at least 2016, when activists and writers like Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, cited the law to criticize Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Facing these kinds of criticisms, Biden has argued that the 1994 law, as a federal statute, couldn’t have caused mass incarceration. He argued in May, “Folks, let’s get something straight: 92 out of every 100 prisoners end up behind bars are in a state prison, not a federal prison. This idea that the crime bill generated mass incarceration — it did not generate mass incarceration.”

This is a bit of a dodge as to whether the bill intended to increase incarceration, but Biden is generally correct that the bill, despite its intentions, did not actually succeed at expanding incarceration much.


Beyond the changes to hike federal penalties, the 1994 law attempted to encourage states to adopt harsher criminal justice policies. It provided money for states to build prisons and adopt “truth in sentencing” laws that increase prison sentences by requiring inmates to serve out at least 85 percent of their prison sentences without an early release. It’s here where the law could have had most its impact on incarceration — since, as Biden indicated, nearly 88 percent of inmates are held at the state level.

Yet evaluations of the 1994 crime law suggest these state-level provisions didn’t really work out. The 1994 law led only a few states to adopt harsher criminal justice policies, and the tougher policies the 1994 law encouraged weren’t the only measures that fueled mass incarceration overall.

A 1998 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), for which federal investigators talked to state officials about whether the 1994 law influenced state policies, noted that just four states adopted “truth in sentencing” laws (TIS) solely as a response to the 1994 law:


At the time of our review, based upon determinations made by DOJ, 27 states had TIS laws that met the requirements for receiving federal TIS grants. For each of these 27 states, we contacted state officials to determine whether the availability of such grants was a factor in the respective state’s decision to enact a TIS law. Based on the responses to our telephone survey, the states can be grouped into three categories—TIS grants not a factor (12 states), TIS grants a partial factor (11 states), and TIS grants a key factor (4 states).
Why did most states apparently not take much direction from the 1994 law? Many state officials said they were already interested in “tough on crime” measures before the federal law, GAO investigators found:

According to Ohio officials, the state passed its TIS law in 1995, which is later than the enactment date of the 1994 Crime Act. However, the officials told us the state law was based on a July 1993 report by the Ohio Sentencing Commission. Thus, according to the state officials, the availability of federal grants did not influence the state’s decision to pass TIS legislation. Rather, according to Ohio officials, a widespread concern about early release of violent crime offenders was a major factor in the state’s decision to pass TIS legislation.
Some state officials also argued that the funding incentives were too small to drive big policy changes. Vermont, for instance, said meeting the federal requirements for “truth in sentencing” would cost several million dollars but only result in about $80,000 in federal grants.

A more recent report, published by the National Institute of Justice in 2002, produced similar findings: “Overall, Federal TIS grants were associated with relatively few State TIS reforms. There was relatively little reform activity after the 1994 enactment of the Federal TIS grant program, as many States had already adopted some form of TIS by that time.”


“Truth in sentencing” laws were also only one way that federal and state governments embraced mass incarceration. They also flat-out increased prison sentences, adopted harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and encouraged police and prosecutors to be tougher on criminals — most of which happened separately from the 1994 law.

That’s reflected in the statistics, which show that incarceration rates were climbing rapidly before the 1994 crime law and actually started leveling off a few years after.


Prison Policy Initiative
This is relevant to Democratic attempts to reverse mass incarceration, too. For example, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), another presidential candidate, has introduced a bill that would encourage states, with financial incentives, to cut back incarceration — a sort of antonym to the 1994 crime law. But as Fordham Law School criminal justice expert John Pfaff wrote for Vox, the approach overstates “the role of federal policy in expanding state prison populations” and “the role federal policy might play in reducing those populations.”

In this way, a clear reading of the 1994 law’s actual effects is very relevant not just to Biden’s politics, but criminal justice reformers’ efforts to undo mass incarceration.


Still, the 1994 law reflects Biden’s “tough on crime” history
Whatever the effects of the 1994 crime law and Biden’s reasons for supporting it, it is only one piece of Biden’s much longer history backing “tough on crime” policies that at the very least attempted to escalate incarceration nationwide.

Here are some examples from his record, drawn partly from Jamelle Bouie’s previous rundown at Slate:

Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law, spearheaded by Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), expanded federal drug trafficking penalties and civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize and absorb someone’s property — whether cash, cars, guns, or something else — without proving the person is guilty of a crime.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986: This law, sponsored and partly written by Biden, ratcheted up penalties for drug crimes. It also created a big sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine; even though the drugs are pharmacologically similar, the law made it so someone would need to possess 100 times the amount of powder cocaine to be eligible for the same mandatory minimum sentence for crack. Since crack is more commonly used by black Americans, this sentencing disparity helped fuel big racial disparities in incarceration.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: This law, co-sponsored by Biden, increased prison sentences for drug possession, enhanced penalties for transporting drugs, and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which coordinates and leads federal anti-drug efforts.
Just as with his comments around the 1994 law, Biden was also explicit about what his goals were with these other measures. In 1989, at the height of punitive anti-drug and mass incarceration politics, Biden even went on national television to criticize a plan from President George H.W. Bush to escalate the war on drugs. The plan, Biden said, didn’t go far enough.

“Quite frankly, the president’s plan is not tough enough, bold enough, or imaginative enough to meet the crisis at hand,” he said. He called not just for harsher punishments for drug dealers but to “hold every drug user accountable.” Bush’s plan, Biden added, “doesn’t include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, not enough prosecutors to convict them, not enough judges to sentence them, and not enough prison cells to put them away for a long time” — a direct call for more incarceration.

All of this reflected a broader movement in the Democratic Party to both address the growing issue of crime and overcome successful Republican attacks about how Democrats are “soft on crime.” This helps explain not just why Biden said and did all these things, but why Bill Clinton signed the 1994 crime law and ran on its “tough on crime” provisions — including his support for the “death penalty for drug kingpins” — during his reelection bid in 1996.

Biden has repented for some of his past, acknowledging that creating extra punitive penalties for crack was “a big mistake” and supporting efforts to reel back those penalties. “I haven’t always been right,” Biden said earlier this year, speaking to criminal justice issues. “I know we haven’t always gotten things right, but I’ve always tried.”

That may not offer much comfort for criminal justice reformers. A big worry in the criminal justice reform space is what would happen if, say, the crime rate started to rise once again. If that were to happen, there could be pressure on lawmakers — and it’d at least be easier for them — to go back to “tough on crime” views, framing more aggressive policing and higher incarceration rates in a favorable way.

Given that the central progressive claim is that these policies are racist and, based on the research, ineffective for fighting crime in the first place, any potential for backsliding in this area once it becomes politically convenient is very alarming.

The concern, then, is what would happen if crime started to rise under President Biden: Would he fall back on old “tough on crime” instincts, calling for harsh prison sentences once again?

“[E]ven if Biden has subsequently learned the error of his ways,” Branko Marcetic wrote for Jacobin, “the rank cynicism and callousness involved in his two-decade-long championing of carceral policies should be more than enough to give anyone pause about his qualities as a leader, let alone a progressive one.”


That’s what the debate over the 1994 crime law is about. It’s not just that Biden messed up by helping write and supporting the law a quarter-century ago, but what his involvement says about him today and in the future.

 

[Fright Night]

Red or Blue, Donkey or Elephant u depending on a cac to make changes in our favor.....

....they are all in on it!

 

[Dannyblueyes]

A white Democrat is basically just a republican who believes in clean air, Universal health Care, woman's right to choose, and other "liberal" positions that aren't even considered partisan in most countries.

 

[blaze]

I was going to let that shit go, but I just can't! I hate when people offer ridiculous arguments as for the reason a WHOLE party! Just like everything else in life, you need context in order to even make it appear that your argument is not bias. Like for instance, you associate the KKK with democrats. While that was true back in the day, but when the civil rights bills were going back and forth in congress and democrat leadership was pushing that shit, a gang of them racist politicians jumped ship. Where did they go? You know where they went.

So you want to convince me that I need to vote for the buffoon-in-chief deserves a second term because of that!?! Or maybe you want to believe that all of the over incarceration and black people being jailed was due to the democrats ONLY. How you not going to mention the crack epidemic or the war on drugs that really started a whole new chapter on how we kill black families. The later policies adopted by the democratic policy were in response to losing elections to republican candidates who were promising to be tough on "crime." The reality is that both parties took part in fucking black people and it's really more about knowing who you're voting for and what policies are being passed in congress. Stop with all that you got to stop voting for one party shit....for real.

 

[geechiedan]

the issues highlighted aren't so much about party labels than it is ideology and execution on that ideology

Do you know the history of why blacks tend to vote for the liberal/progressive party rather than the conservative?

Blacks supported republicans (when they could vote) but the 1800s up to 1950s republicans were liberals compared to the democrats of that time who were decidedly conservative. Even tho there was the GOP and democratic parties in the 1800s.. abolishing slavery (the GOP position) was pretty liberal compared to the democrats position on the subject (only conservatism could give birth to the kkk)...don't think that's true..then why do most out racists, white nationalists vote conservative/republican today? When the basic ideology of the parties flipped (and they did flip) thats when blacks migrated to the democrats.

In 1854, the Republican Party was founded mainly to end slavery, and for two decades it honorably promoted African-American equality. Its first presidential nominee, pioneer James C. Frémont, took a staunch anti-slavery stand in 1856 and ran well, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln's election four years later. Lincoln was no radical. He believed white men superior to blacks and opposed the outright abolition of slavery. But he wanted to stop slavery's westward expansion in the hope that it would die out—a position that won him endorsements from leading African-Americans such as Frederick Douglass and 40 percent of the overall vote, enough for victory in a four-way race.

After the Civil War, the "Radical Republicans," who oversaw the Reconstruction of the South, brought blacks into electoral politics. Blacks naturally joined the GOP rather than the white supremacist Southern Democrats. In these golden years, black Republicans got the vote and even won elective office (Mississippi elected the nation's first African-American senator in 1870). Led by the GOP, the nation ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which ended slavery and gave black men full citizenship and the franchise.


The GOP's abandonment of African-Americans commenced with the presidential election of 1876. The party had already been subordinating its agenda of black equality to that of cultivating Northern industrialists when Ohio Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, to resolve a contested election, agreed to the notorious Compromise of 1876. In exchange for their support, Hayes promised Southern Democrats to withdraw federal troops from the South and to let them treat blacks as they pleased. Almost immediately, white supremacist, or "redeemer" Democrats regained power, heralding the reign of Jim Crow. Ironically, the compromise also crippled black Republicanism, as state Republican parties, to compete for white votes, engaged in racial me-tooism, purging blacks from the party or shunting them into "Black and Tan" delegations whose legitimacy was.

By the Progressive Era, both the Republicans and the Democrats were generally uninterested in helping African-Americans. One issue that couldn't be ignored—though the parties tried—was the horror of lynching, which had become rampant in the post-Reconstruction South. Anti-lynching laws marked the last major civil rights issue on which Republicans were out in front.


In 1920 Leonidas Dyer, a Missouri Republican from a largely black St. Louis district, introduced an anti-lynching bill, which the new Republican president, Warren Harding, endorsed. The House passed it in January 1922 (231-199, with only 17 Republicans opposing and eight Northern or border-state Democrats in support). Yet even though they controlled the Senate too, the GOP couldn't, or wouldn't, pull out the stops to pass the law. While Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts supported the bill, the powerful Idaho Republican William Borah opposed it as meddling in states' rights and helped Southern Democrats kill it. The Borah-Lodge rift foretold a schism in the GOP between Northeastern liberals and a Midwestern and Western Old Guard that would later scramble the party's racial politics.

The election of Roosevelt in 1932 marked the beginning of a change. The realignment crystallized under President Franklin Roosevelt. In 1932, FDR won just 23 percent of the black vote. Yet he swiftly bolstered his black support.Gestures such as consulting a "black cabinet" of unofficial African-American advisers surely helped, but more important were his economic relief programs. The Depression hit black Americans disproportionately hard, and FDR's relief programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works Administration, gave them much-needed aid and jobs. A popular song among Depression-era blacks made it plain:

Roosevelt! You're my man!
When the time come I ain't got a cent
You buy my groceries
And pay my rent.
Mr. Roosevelt, you're my man!

In Congress, meanwhile, Northern and Western Democrats took the lead on progressive racial legislation; it was two Democratic senators who in 1934 introduced the next major anti-lynching bill. Between 1932 and 1936, writes historian Nancy J. Weiss in Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR, "Roosevelt and the New Deal changed the voting habits of black Americans in ways that have lasted to our own time."


Roosevelt got 71 percent of the black vote for president in 1936 and did nearly that well in the next two elections, according to historical figures kept by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. But even then, the number of blacks identifying themselves as Republicans was about the same as the number who thought of themselves as Democrats.

It wasn't until Harry Truman garnered 77 percent of the black vote in 1948 that a majority of blacks reported that they thought of themselves as Democrats. Earlier that year Truman had issued an order desegregating the armed services and an executive order setting up regulations against racial bias in federal employment.

Even after that, Republican nominees continued to get a large slice of the black vote for several elections. Dwight D. Eisenhower got 39 percent in 1956, and Richard Nixon got 32 percent in his narrow loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960. Entering the 1960 election the Democrats, behind such leaders as Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Herbert Lehman of New York, had become the unquestioned party of civil rights. Richard Nixon, who always overestimated his own popularity with blacks, still hoped to fare well—Jackie Robinson, for one, endorsed him—and he probably had a stronger civil rights record than John F. Kennedy. But JFK courted the black vote, famously phoning Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife, Coretta, when the civil rights leader was jailed. Kennedy would have commanded the black vote anyway, but the closeness of the election led analysts to mythologize the phone call as critical.

The battle over Civil Rights marked the last hurrah for racial liberalism within the GOP. But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, a record for any presidential election until 2008.

The following year Johnson signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. No Republican presidential candidate has gotten more than 15 percent of the black vote since.

____________________________________________

that was a mash up I put together of two articles: Blacks and the Democratic Party and The Party of Lincoln... on the history of the Black vote and loyalty to the Republicans and Democrats at various times in US history.

Since 1968 on up to today it seems that the democratic party has taken the black vote for granted and the republican party has disregarded it for the last 40 years.

But looking at history its clear to see that blacks (like everyone else) have a propensity to support candidates and a parties which they believe demonstrate a willingness to address core social, economic and political issues facing the African American community. Whether that response is substantive or symbolic. Unfortunately more often than not particularly of late the response has been more symbolic than anything.

But looking at the broad strokes of how the Black vote has been swayed over time its easy to see when and how each party won support.

Usually the person at the top of the ticket on the party is rewarded with support when a concession is made to the black community sometimes even if the ground work was started or created by others in the opposing party. For example LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation and was rewarded with black support even tho alot of the frame work for it was republican crafted.

PRESIDENTS WHO GOT LARGE MAJORITY BLACK SUPPORT IN US HISTORY:
Abraham Lincoln (R)
Warren Harding (R)
Franklin Roosevelt (D)
Harry Truman (D)
John F. Kennedy (D)
Lyndon B. Johnson (D)

At regional and local levels Black have recognized and supported politicians who made direct efforts to respond to the needs of the community. George Romney, (Mitt's daddy) who was the Republican governor of Michigan during the 1960s, won 30% of the African American vote during his race in 1966. George Romney was a staunch supporter of civil rights and desegregation, and even marched in solidarity alongside black protesters in Detroit who were outraged about the violence in Selma, Alabama. That's not an endorse for his son but an illustration that Black support comes to those who show and prove regardless of party affiliation.

The truth is at various times in history members from both parties have advocated for minorities and particularly blacks. Sometimes it was for genuine humane reasons, they saw something that was fucked up and moved to do something about it. Other times (most times) it was political calculation. Lyndon Johnson was particularly cynical in his move toward Civil Rights legislation:

These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

Since the 60s African Americans have voted consistently democratic even as most of the response from the Democratic Party is mostly lip service. Meanwhile the Republican Party has made the political calculation to disregard the Black vote almost entirely and in this election cycle completely.

DO YOU THINK ITS POSSIBLE THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CAN RECAPTURE THE BLACK VOTE AND HOW WOULD IT HAPPEN?

 

[RoomService]

 

[TENT]

This is interesting but incredible irrelevant.
Different times different views.
Democratic Party then changed basically changed into the Republican Party now.

Either way, the party now is the party against Trump.

If you are smart you already knew this and you know what to do in the 2020 Presidential Elections.

OP is a bitch for this.

 

[yureeka9]

 

[roots69]

Bruh, ain't that the truth!! This is WWE!!!

 

[sammyjax]

@roots69 should we vote republican?

 

[Goingmark40]

op keeps making threads about what democrats have done. right now none of that shit matters. america has too much going on all on the orange buffon's watch plus he's losing his marbles. main focus is to vote his incompetent ass out

 

[Dr. Truth]

I been warning y’all about this honky OP and his klan of cacs and republikkklan coons flooding the board

 

[powmia]

OP go play in traffic or jump off a bridge. Why are you advocating for us to vote for Trump and the republicans. Make a post about the 20 embarrassing thing republicans did From 2017-2020. Why are you spamming this board with propaganda from John Hawkins right wing conservative blogger. So extreme that he got banned from Facebook in 2018. This is very telling that you omitted his name as the original author of the lost. Second, that you are following someone like him.

John Hawkins (@johnhawkinsrwn) on Twitter

John Hawkins (columnist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena.

townhall.com

He gets paid for helping the republicans and Trump, the question is do you get paid by them too roots69?

 

[sammyjax]

OP go play in traffic or jump off a bridge. Why are you advocating for us to vote for Trump and the republicans. Make a post about the 20 embarrassing thing republicans did From 2017-2020. Why are you spamming this board with propaganda from John Hawkins right wing conservative blogger. So extreme that he got banned from Facebook in 2018. This is very telling that you omitted his name as the original author of the lost. Second, that you are following someone like him.

John Hawkins (@johnhawkinsrwn) on Twitter

John Hawkins (columnist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena.

townhall.com

He gets paid for helping the republicans and Trump, the question is do you get paid by them too roots69?

Told yall this muhfucka was an imbecile

@roots69 you goddamn dunce

 

[Flawless]

Looking at OP's post history he loves to criticize Biden and Democrats but has yet to create a single thread criticizing the Republican party.

 

[HeathCliff]

OP go play in traffic or jump off a bridge. Why are you advocating for us to vote for Trump and the republicans. Make a post about the 20 embarrassing thing republicans did From 2017-2020. Why are you spamming this board with propaganda from John Hawkins right wing conservative blogger. So extreme that he got banned from Facebook in 2018. This is very telling that you omitted his name as the original author of the lost. Second, that you are following someone like him.

John Hawkins (@johnhawkinsrwn) on Twitter

John Hawkins (columnist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena.

townhall.com

He gets paid for helping the republicans and Trump, the question is do you get paid by them too roots69?

Looking at OP's post history he loves to criticize Biden and Democrats but has yet to create a single thread criticizing the Republican party.

It all makes sense now. Write on brotha right on. lol

 

[TENT]

Amazing. Thanks for finding and posting this. Bitch ass faggot @roots69 has been exposed.

OP go play in traffic or jump off a bridge. Why are you advocating for us to vote for Trump and the republicans. Make a post about the 20 embarrassing thing republicans did From 2017-2020. Why are you spamming this board with propaganda from John Hawkins right wing conservative blogger. So extreme that he got banned from Facebook in 2018. This is very telling that you omitted his name as the original author of the lost. Second, that you are following someone like him.

John Hawkins (@johnhawkinsrwn) on Twitter

John Hawkins (columnist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena.

townhall.com

He gets paid for helping the republicans and Trump, the question is do you get paid by them too roots69?

 

[blackpepper]

Amazing. Thanks for finding and posting this. Bitch ass faggot @roots69 has been exposed.

Yeah, he's outed his self with this.

 

[knightmelodic]

Couldn't even hold on until November. Oh well, another bites the ignore.

 

[Bedroom Bully]

I been warning y’all about this honky OP and his klan of cacs and republikkklan coons flooding the board

We know who the agents are on BGOL. Why can’t we get rid of them?

 

[Race Harley]

@roots69 should we vote republican?

@roots69

 

[crossovernegro]

Lol....he was already outed, but I guess he wanted to supersize it

 

[HeathCliff]

Lol....he was already outed, but I guess he wanted to supersize it

 

[killagram]

We know who the agents are on BGOL. Why can’t we get rid of them?

I'm working on all them muffuckaz..on my end..brah

 

[shaddyvillethug]

We know who the agents are on BGOL. Why can’t we get rid of them?

Hnic made it wide open.

 

[THREAD_CRITIC]

Looking at OP's post history he loves to criticize Biden and Democrats but has yet to create a single thread criticizing the Republican party.

you’re right on ignore he goes

 

[Tito_Jackson]

I just dont understand why it is so hard to ignore party affiliations and vote based upon merit? Despite his party affiliation, Trump divides the country and is a catalyst for racism. He has no interest in truly improving the economic situation of black people. Like most politicians, his allegiance lies with the weathy. How he represents the country on a world stage is embarrassing. He has increased the deficit by trillions.

I am not voting for this person for those reasons, not because of this person's political affiliation. I have absolutely voted for many Republicans and Democrats. I vote for whoever serves my best interest.

Why is that so hard?

 

[sammyjax]

@roots69 shit didn't work out how you wanted huh?

You may as well delete this thread, I'ma haunt your bitch ass with this muhfucka every time you open your cock polishers.

 

[Flawless]

I just dont understand why it is so hard to ignore party affiliations and vote based upon merit? Despite his party affiliation, Trump divides the country and is a catalyst for racism. He has no interest in truly improving the economic situation of black people. Like most politicians, his allegiance lies with the weathy. How he represents the country on a world stage is embarrassing. He has increased the deficit by trillions.

I am not voting for this person for those reasons, not because of this person's political affiliation. I have absolutely voted for many Republicans and Democrats. I vote for whoever serves my best interest.

Why is that so hard?

Because there are zero reasons to vote Republican.

 

[ghoststrike]

There use to be a rule against posting articles with no source links. TheAllLivesMatter crew are attempting to take advantage of policy no longer being enforced, especially as the election gets closer.

 

[xfactor]

The democrips and rebloodpicans will never understand this until it is too late. Hopefully a few reading this thread will snap out of the programming.

great meme to go with a great post!

 

[sammyjax]

There use to be a rule against posting articles with no source links. TheAllLivesMatter crew are attempting to take advantage of policy no longer being enforced, especially as the election gets closer.

Right!

Tf happened around here

 

[xfactor]

because you aren’t a so-called black man that has a feminine mindset like @sammyjax or @Dr. Truth that tremble in fear, hold their head down and turn their voice soprano in the presence of the Neanderthal.

the Democrats have gotten our vote religiously for 50+ years and haven’t delivered shit. They get held accountable or we go elsewhere.

Simple shit.

I just dont understand why it is so hard to ignore party affiliations and vote based upon merit? Despite his party affiliation, Trump divides the country and is a catalyst for racism. He has no interest in truly improving the economic situation of black people. Like most politicians, his allegiance lies with the weathy. How he represents the country on a world stage is embarrassing. He has increased the deficit by trillions.

I am not voting for this person for those reasons, not because of this person's political affiliation. I have absolutely voted for many Republicans and Democrats. I vote for whoever serves my best interest.

Why is that so hard?