For starters tell me Democrats stand against racial discrimination correct?
What? Are you asking me to do something, telling me to do something, or simply had
@atlkvb write this for you? Can you put in the correct commas so that your sentence begins to make even a little bit of sense.
YOU made the statement that Trump's supporters were "stupid" and "deplorable". You were asked specifically what about them made them either or both? Post your answer to that direct question, because I can't seem to find it. Your initial post said nothing about "civil rights act" demographics, and you also didn't answer the direct question about that regarding which party opposed it (Civil rights act) in '65, and which party voted with Lyndon Johnson to pass it?
.
Yes, Trump has a high percentage of his supporters who are "stupid." I use "stupid" interchangeably with "poorly educated," as in most cases, they go hand-in-hand (see
@atlkvb for reference).
I believe I already posted the numerous sources showing that Trump had the highest percent of any Republican candidate's supporters who were uneducated. That, once again, is why Trump exclaimed "I love the poorly educated." He did this because both he and his staff were aware of the fact that a high percentage of his support came from the poorly educated (or "stupid," in most cases).
"Deplorables" refers to people who lack basic ethics, tact, etc. Anyone who supports a guy who boasts about the size of his genitals during a presidential debate, mocks the appearance of another candidate's wife, mocks the appearance of a female candidate, boasts publicly about cheating numerous times on multiple wives, mocks the physical disability of another person, boasts about sexually assaulting women, makes numerous racial and/or ethnically insensitive comments, has been sued for $100 million by the Justice Department for racial discrimination, has paid the Justice Department seven-figures for a racial discrimination settlement, has been accused by multiple people of using the "N" word, has urged his followers to physically assault people who protest during his rallies . . . yeah, those supporters are deplorables.
David Duke was not welcomed or supported by the Republican party. As for the others, their names were mentioned to indicate it was the Democrat party who was the author of the Jim Crow South. If you're claiming they have simply switched parties, why did it take Republicans to overcome Democrat objections to ending legal racial segregation while those Dudes were still Democrats?
.
Duke ran and WON as a Republican state rep. In the 90s (no apostophe, which you continue to butcher along with the other deplorable), Duke received more than 43% of the vote as a Republican U.S. Senator AFTER he formed an organization called the "National Association of the Advancement of White People" which was to mock the NAACP. He wasn't supported by the Republican Party? More than 43% of Republican voters in Louisiana sure welcomed and supported him with open arms.
The second part of your comment has no logic behind it. Numerous racist politicians switched from the Democratic to Republican parties as a result of the switch in political beliefs. Do you deny the politicians that I named (Duke, Thurmon, King, Helms) are/were racist? Why do you think some switched? Likewise, I can name numerous current Democrats who have switched in recent history citing racist GOP beliefs.
Your claim about Jim Crow laws is just more proof of my claim. Previously, the Democratic Party was the safe spot for racists. That is no longer the case and is supported numerous, numerous ways.
You keep saying that the Civil Rights Act voting was based on party. Facts simply do not support that. Hell, the president pushing the Act was Democratic. The Republican nominee for president that year (Goldwater) fought and campaigned hard against it. As I have said, the voting on it was determined by geography, not party. I already provided some stats for that, but I will provide more to further bury your argument:
This was the House vote:
61% of Democrats supported it
80% of Republicans supported it
This was the senate vote:
69% of Democrats supported it
81% of Republicans supported it
At this point, you'd say, "See, Republicans voted in favor of it by 12%-19%" as support for your argument. But what your deplorable mind doesn't understand is that was because of geography, not party.
Out of 145 House northern Democratic votes, 141 northern Dems supported it while only 4 were against it. Out of 103 House southern Democratic votes, 11 supported it while 92 were against it.
Clearly, the north overwhelmingly supported it and the south overwhelmingly was against it even in the same damn party. Hell, in the House, the northern democratic support of it was greater than the Republican support of it.
To further prove it, lets look at how the southern Republicans voted:
There were 11 Republican members of Congress from southern (Confederate) states. Every single one of those 11 voted against the Act. So, Republican members of Congress from southern states voted 0% for the act.
There were 116 Democratic members of Congress from the southern (Confederate) states. Only 8 voted for the Act (7%).
So southern Democratic congressmen voted 7% for the Act and 0% of southern Republican congressmen voted for the Act. As you can see, southern Democrats supported the Act at a higher rate than southern Republican congressmen. This isn't a feather in the Democratic cap. Even though they had a higher approval rate of it, regardless of party, it was extremely unpopular in the south. In total, only 6% of southern members of Congress, regardless of party, supported the Act.
There were 194 northern (better yet, the other 39 non-Confederate states) Republican congressmen. 85% of northern Republican congressmen voted for the Act.
There were 199 northern (better yet, the other 39 non-Confederate states) Democratic congressmen. 95% of northern Democratic congressmen voted for the Act.
As you can see, the Act was overwhelmingly popular in the north. Just like in the south, the northern Democrats approved of the act at a higher rate than the northern Republicans.
To summarize once again for you: Over 90% of all congressmen from the north, regardless of party, voted for it. Only 6% of all congressmen from the south, regardless of party, voted for it.
Clearly, the voting difference wasn't based on party, but rather, by geography.
I'm actually not trying to be a dick here for once. Your belief is the kind of ******** history that the convicted felon, Dinesh D'Souza promotes unethically. He manipulates the numbers, like I first presented, to claim what you were. But when you actually have the intelligence to look at the statistics logically, reality is entirely different.
The Civil Rights Act voting was not at all related to party and absolutely linked to geography.
Here your history is chronologically flawed. In the 60's, it was the Democrat party that opposed racial integration, and insisted on segregation. Those dudes left the party because Democrats would not abandon that position! What Republicans ran on maintaining the status quo in the South in terms of segregation? That was Democrat policy Mr. "highly educated".
.
This claim by you should shut the book on your entire argument. You're trying to say that Jessie Helms switched from Democrat to Republican because Democrats would not abandon their belief in segregation? Helms is noted for having a contemptuous relationship with UNC, his home state university. In fact, he referred to it as the "University of Negroes and Communists." There are numerous, numerous stories and votes by Helms to prove his racism. It isn't really something that is in denial by anyone. He would have never left a party due to its racism, but rather, did the exact opposite.
I'll share one tidbit. In the late 90s, I played travel baseball for a team consisting of kids along the east coast. One of my teammates was a wealthy kid from North Carolina. He was a bright kid; went to a private high school, daddy owned numerous companies, etc. He's actually the chairman of one company, president of another, and chairman and/or director of at least three independent banks that I know of as well as owns a huge farm. He was previously the president of the biggest farm association in the country . . . and he is still in this thirties.
But he was your typical southern preppy kid. He had no problem admitting his racist ways. Shortly after his high school graduation, before he started playing at Cornell, he was telling a group of us (teammates) about his high school graduation. Senator Helms was the speaker, and in the middle of his speech, he twice used the N-word. Each time, the small crowd let out applause. This was Helms, and these were the people who supported him.
So your claim that these politicians jumped from Dems to Repubs due to Democrats promoting segregation is as absurd as your claim about the Civil Rights Voting Act.
I could go through each one of your comments refute them, but every single one is either factually incorrect or straw man arguments . . . hell, your very last one is as much of a straw man as you can get. You claimed that I contradicted myself when I said that every Trump supporter was stupid. I didn't make that claim. It's a straw man argument. You're wanting me to support something I never said.
Learn reading comprehension, stop with the straw man arguments, and then maybe I will educate you some more.
