meh. i don't think the KKK is a pivital part of history. a footnote if nothing more. the jim crow laws though should be in it. they were nothing more then a way to continue to keep the blacks down.
I think part of the problem is how much they have to cover in a short time. stuff is going to be left out.
Just cut the chord. Let Texas go.
WTF?! No, why would you even think I'd think that??? Reps Pols want those illegals in the country just as much as the Dem Pols, so blacks switching their voting allegiance for that reason would be pointless.
Blacks should just form their own political party, one that will actually represent them. Dems sure aren't, why not try something new?
I wish that would happen. I'll be packing my stuff and moving to texas within a fortnight. The rest of the country can sink under the weight of Illiforniork's debt. If it werent for Texas, this country would have created zero fulltime jobs in the past 8 years! Oh wait, even with Texas this country is still down thousands of full time jobs compared to 8 years ago. But anyway, yeah, it would be a whole lot worse without Texas. And after all the non-deadbeats moved to Texas, it would be even worse for Illiforniork.
Just do us all a favor and shut up if you can't add anything to the discussion.
Actually the racism in both parties is relatively equal.
Sorry, just skimmed through the post, (I was on the phone) Doubt they'd get much support or change nationally if they did form their own party, much like the independent party or the Green party. Like it or not the two party system is deeply entrenched in this country.
Just do us all a favor and shut up if you can't add anything to the discussion.
Just do us all a favor and shut up if you can't add anything to the discussion.
liberals complaining about whitewashing history while working to delete the confederate flag? wut?
Interesting choice of which graphs to use. Here are the one's you left out.
"We combined the responses from the eight questions into one index of negative racial attitudes. We accomplished this by averaging the number of white Americans who provided the arguably racist response to each survey item, extrapolating the value for years in which the General Social Survey didnt ask a particular question based on the long-term trend in responses to it.
Yes, they are close, just not quite as close as you seem to be implying. What I find interesting about 538's figures is that they indicate that while racism has been dropping with both parties the spread between the parties is actually increasing.
1990 - 40% white Democrats vs 41% white republicans (1% difference)
2006 - 22% white Democrats vs 26% white Republicans (4% difference)
2012 - 19% white Democrats vs 27% white Republicans (8% difference)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/
Don't go trying to change his mind now! We need more idiots like him to migrate to texas. Let's keep them all in one state so it becomes easier to ignore them.
Why did LBJ say that he'll have blacks voting Democratic for 200 years? Free stuff.
More likely because he was willing to fight against stuff like this:
unbelievable attempt at covering up history and the truth, this is USA not some communist country where history books are rewritten to suit the regime.
I completely disagree. At its peak, the KKK had millions of members. It was a major movement in the south to fight against the republican party of the time. It shows the mood of the south and how people were back then. It is a very important part of American history.
That's some southern pride and heritage right there!
He spent the first 20 years of his political career vigorously fighting against the rights of blacks. The only reason liberal apologists came out of the woodwork to support this racist is because he had a (D) behind his name.More likely because he was willing to fight against stuff like this:
And not nearly as long ago as some people would like to believe. The nightly news when I was a kid.
A familiar argument.
So a 38% vs 30% difference is profoundly indicative of a HUGE disparity in party racism...got it. What was the poll accuracy? 3%? Believe what you want to...disregard the rest.2012 - 19% white Democrats vs 27% white Republicans (8% difference)
He spent the first 20 years of his political career vigorously fighting against the rights of blacks. The only reason liberal apologists come out of the woodwork to support this racist is because he had a (D) behind his name.
In this forum you've shown yourself to be incredibly racist, intellectually dishonest and worthy of zero respect. You're a joke and too stupid to realize it. Just please shut up and go away.Ask yourself what you added to the discussion by that post I quoted. That's what makes your comment even moreso ridiculous.
Maybe you should take your own advice and just shut up.
So a 38% vs 30% difference is profoundly indicative of a HUGE disparity in party racism...got it. What was the poll accuracy? 3%? Believe what you want to...disregard the rest.