As whites become a minority in the next 30 years, the Republican Party will

Many politicians have often stated things they don't mean and don't care to carry out... They're called "campaign promises.

How so? On your wikipedia link, it lists the KKK as a far-right organization.

I could learn the sky is red and green from reading the threads...

Ridiculous... Just with youtube alone you could hear some of the slag such people spew. Not to say that the liberals don't come with their own truck full of moral arguments, but on the opposite side you have those people saying the things I already mentioned. There's no way you're going to be able to convince someone those are all liberals...even by half.

Everyone has a nice ideology. Nixon, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama....all of them had nice ideologies...How many criminals can you spot in that list alone. Bush Sr's and Clinton's invovement in Iran Contra. Nixon's scandals, Obama's corrosive un-constitutional regime. Quite different from party ideology, most because it's just advertisment.

 

Merely poo-pooing my statement doesn't make it less factual nor diminish in any way the real history of republican excellent record on race, nor does it excuse the democrat party for it's transgressions against African Americans and other minorities over the it's entire existence.

Far right racially, not far right politically. It's always a mistake to label racists far right. Are there no far left racists? Look at Woodrow Wilson. How about Adolf Hitler? But you once again missed the point where you insinuated that the KKK was exclusively Southerners, did you not read the part that said they were nationwide? The democrat party has always been the liberal party, the republicans have always been the conservative party. The KKK has always been the terrorist wing of the democrat party. Given that fact the KKK should be deemed far left. At any rate, you poor attempt to associate the KKK with republicans, who were often targeted and lynched by the KKK, is a ridiculous attempt to disassociate the democrat party of their culpability. Republicans actually outlawed the KKK, did you know that?

No doubt. You have an exceptional talent for turning truth on it's head giving you an aptly named pseudonym.

Being racist doesn't make you conservative.

This country isn't the country it was 60 years ago. Racism has become democrats dog whistle. This isn't 1950's Selma, Alabama anymore. Today's young people have never seen the kind of racism their grandparents experienced. I can't remember one instance of where I've seen someone seriously use the "n-word" in public. Anecdotal evidence of the use of the "n-word", I've only even seen it on social media, or in rap music, or by comedians or Michael Richards. Calling someone who is black an ape, goon, thug, savage or a terrorist isn't racist, because you can call white people apes, goons, thugs, savages or terrorists. Crying wolf, making racial incidents where none exists does a disservice to actual cases of racism and it's victims.

I see no reason why democrats feel the need for republicans to "remake their image", when it is in fact the democrats have remade their image into something that is a complete 180 from the real facts and history. Perhaps it is time for the democrats to own up to their history and apologize for it.

 

They were racists. They made it so only whites could immigrate to the US, which is why the country is majority white. Its in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Necessity.

 

Every Republican President signing some form of civil rights legislation is quite the broad brush to paint, and could easily indicate the most loosely-defined things as civil rights legislation. It would probably be equally true that every democratic president has signed some form of civil rights legislation in the past. But Nixon is one example of a President who was racist, and used coded language like "states rights" and the like to undermine the Civil Rights movement. Reagan was also known to have spoken directly against Civil Rights both for himself and speaking for Barry Goldwater.

Far right racially, not politically. Huh? So they like immigration and that such? What you are saying does not vindicate the right, but only says that racism extends across left-right party politics, clearly. My attempt to associate KKK is not poor. They identify themselves as Republican. And again, what Democrats and Republicans were then and what they are know is two different things. Even so, both of them were generally racist.

What you present is not truth. It's just party propaganda.

Says you...

What happens in the world is not limited to what you have experienced, have heard, or what you consider to be racism or not. Just so, one can call a white person a n****r, a c**n, or whatever. The words aren't racist, in and of themselves, but they are often used to express racist ideas.

Both Democrats and Republicans pump out propaganda and the such in order to mold their image. It's politics.

 

I call BS on the stupid "code words". I have never seen anywhere a claim that Nixon was a racist. The same goes for Reagan and Goldwater. Goldwater didn't oppose the '64 CRA for racial reasons, but because of the public accommodations sections.
Eisenhower: Signed civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 to protect the right to vote.
Nixon: helped shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through Congress; Desegregated schools; implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1970.
Reagan: Signed the Extension to the Voting Rights Act in November, 1981.
Gerald Ford: Proclamation supporting the Equal Rights Amendment.
George H. W. Bush: the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; Civil Rights Act of 1991.
George W. Bush: Signed the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.
There might be a democrat who signed something as well, but I can't find it. And of course LBJ signed '64 CRA and '65 VRA but he opposed the 1957 CRA. I know that JFK did not every sign any civil rights legislation, but he also oppose it at a senator.

No, the KKK has always been the terrorist wing of the democrat party. Making such a claim goes against all common sense and is outrageous on it face. Like I said earlier, you have an upside-down view of history.

If you are using racist words, you are a racist.

Democrats have a history of racism, the same can't be said of republicans. That's not propaganda, that is truth.

 

And then they imported African slaves to work the land. And then they pushed the country farther out west where the Mexicans were living. Do you see why this is not and never will be a Whites only country? So you can stop dreaming.

 

There were no Mexicans in the west. The land was mostly unpopulated. As for African slaves, I don't think I should have to suffer a diverse country due to their mistakes.

I do what I feel is right. I don't really care if we will succeed or not.

 

It's funny that I mentioned social conservatism becoming irrelevant, and you go on a rant about the so called "historic 2014 midterms", and ignore the fact that I said social conservatism, not the GOP, will eventually become irrelevant. Now, what I did say was that the GOP could become irrelevant if they ignore Demographic projections and keep pandering to the socially conservative Wallace voters, but they won't, because they aren't stupid like their base.

Oh, and the results of those midterms was based on what was a historically low turn out rate, which many voters, particularly minorities voters, didn't vote. But go ahead and hilariously believe you've somehow obtained some "permanent majority" based on what was essentially a small sample size of voters. Oh, and lol@you calling George Wallace a liberal. I find it hilarious how you believe that tripe.

 

Oh, and provide evidence that " 1 in 3" hispanics vote Republican. This should good.

 

The Wallace voters were liberal democrats. Liberal democrats voted for Wallace because he was a liberal. If George Wallace was a conservative, why did 80% of blacks vote for Wallace in his last election as governor? Let me just remind you, George Wallace war a racist segregationist democrat from the South who won 6 democrat primaries for president of the United States, in the year 1972 - and not just Southern states. Now, most voters today have never heard of George Wallace. That is why I am here to make sure that people know the truth about George Wallace. If you wish to discuss more about George Wallace and his racist history in the democrat party, I would be glad to keep talking about it. Heck we have plenty of pictures as well. Yes, I can demonstrate unequivocally that George Wallace, the racist segregationist democrat was in fact a liberal. Now if you want to talk about social conservatives, you could also say that JFK was a social conservative. He was a Catholic. So being socially conservative is not a bad thing or an evil thing. In fact, being socially liberal is a bad or evil thing. But that's another subject.

Anyway, I guess I have to remind you also, that not all blacks and Hispanics voted for the democrats. 1 in 10 blacks vote for the republicans. 1 in 3 Hispanics vote for republicans and in some states it was 2 of 5. Asians are split down the middle. So stop being so obsessed with race and try to start judging people by the content of their character.

See the exit polls by the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html

 

You have to be a troll or something. You telling me me that George Wallace was a liberal, very much indicates to me that you don't even know what the hell a liberal is.

Good luck on that revisionist history though. I understand your ideology has been behind so much hatred and division in this country, which includes the absolute horrific treatment of blacks, that you desperately want to pin all of that on liberals, who were the people responsible for blacks having equal rights in this country.

Oh, and the dems actually won a slightly higher percentage of the hispanic vote in the 2014 midterms compared to 2010, not that it matters any way, because the 2014 midterms had a historically low turn out rate.

 

Did George Wallace endorse Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan? If you said Jimmy Carter, you would be right. Why? Because George Wallace was a liberal. Duh. He was a democrat all his life, even in his last term as governor, 1983 to 1987.



He supported liberal policies as well, which I am guessing makes him a liberal.

It's you who revise history. Woodrow Wilson was a supporter of the KKK, FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, JFK and LBJ fought against civil rights laws that Eisenhower and Nixon pushed through congress. Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the federal government and played "Birth of a Nation" at the White House. FDR and Truman never passed any civil rights legislation. Calvin Coolidge was one of the best presidents on civil rights and was idolized by Ronald Reagan. Why don't you try to find these horrific treatment of blacks that was done by republicans? I won't hold my breath.

Washington Post says the GOP gained 2% of Hispanic votes. The NYT says 3% GOP gain. So, I don't know where you get your facts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2014-midterms/exit-polls/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/04/us/politics/2014-exit-polls.html#us/2014

Do you guys ever use Google to check your facts? And what difference does turnout matter? It only indicates that democrats are so disgusted with their own party that they refused to go to the polls to cast a vote for the idiot democrat politicians.

 

Lmao, the kool aid is strong in this thread. Amazing how some people think democrat always = liberal, and that Republican always = conservative. Good thing most thinking people don't buy into that tripe.

 

Apparently you don't even read your own links.

The dems actually won a slighter higher percentage of the hispanic vote compared to the 2010 midterms. Not that it matters any way, because the midterms were based on an extremely small sample size. Interesting though how the GOP seems to only win big when the majority of people don't vote. And if you don't understand how low turn out rate DOES matter, then i don't know what to tell you.

 

Well, even if so, the NYT shows a 12% gain over 2012, so I guess we made that up with more to spare. Low voter turnout means nothing. Never heard the democrats cry about low voter turnout when they are winning elections. Obama had a higher turnout in his reelection but won by a smaller margin. Just think what would have happened if the GOP actually tried last election.