New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Democrats tthink they voted for civil rights

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

http://core-online.org/News/filibuster/filibuster3.htm

The facts are there which begs these questions:

Why did you vote against civil rights in 1866?

1866 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act (1866) was passed by Congress on 9th April 1866 over the veto of President Andrew Johnson(D).
Civil Rights Act of 1866 - Spartacus Educational
spartacus-educational.com/USAcivil1866.htm

On this date, the House overrode President Andrew Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 with near unanimous Republican support, 122 to 41, marking the first time Congress legislated upon civil rights. First introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the bill mandated that "all persons born in the United States," with the exception of American Indians, were "hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The legislation granted all citizens the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-Illinois) introduced the bill in the United States Senate on January 5, 1866. On February 2, 1866, the Senate voted to approve the bill 33-12. On March 13, 1866, the United States House of Representatives approved the legislation by a vote of 111-38, with 34 members not voting. Representative William Lawrence (R-Ohio), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the following in support of the act:[5]

https://ballotpedia.org/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

Sixty-four of eighty Democrats in the House of Representatives had voted against the 13th Amendment. And so, Republicans feared that once the southern states were back in the Union, a Democrat majority along with a racist Democrat in the White House might undo all they had accomplished for African-Americans. What if they repealed the new Civil Rights Act?

Another point of pride for the GOP is that Republicans voted unanimously for the 14th Amendment, while Democrats voted unanimously against it.

Nine decades would pass before the Republican Party was able to enact further civil rights legislation. President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law the 1957 Civil Rights Act, whose author was a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Enforcement was improved by the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act.

Three years later, Republican congressmen introduced a bill guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. The Kennedy administration countered with a weaker version of this bill, which then became the basis for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Sadly, it was Democrat defiance of the civil rights movement that postponed so much progress, from 1866 until 1964. To quote my own book, “The more we Republicans know about the history of our party, the more the Democrats will worry about the future of theirs.”


http://humanevents.com/2012/04/17/republicans-passed-the-first-civil-rights-act-in-1866/
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Did ya ever notice that when a republican of the 21st century wants to talk about what they have actually done for civil rights they have to go back at least a half a century.

Something is pretty f**ked up when you have to go back that far to find something decent your party has done. These cretins can't even point to a single thing they've done THIS CENTURY that helps minorities or strengthens people's civil rights.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Did ya ever notice that when a republican of the 21st century wants to talk about what they have actually done for civil rights they have to go back at least a half a century.

Something is pretty f**ked up when you have to go back that far to find something decent your party has done. These cretins can't even point to a single thing they've done THIS CENTURY that helps minorities or strengthens people's civil rights.
Did ya ever notice that when a democrat of the 21st century wants to talk about what they have actually done for civil rights they have nowhere to go back at all. The only time they voted for civil rights they voted at a much lower percentage rate than Republicans

Something is pretty f**ked up when you have never done something decent, your democratic party has to blame Republicans for giving civil rights. These cretins aka demcocrats cant' t even point to a single thing they've done this century, last century, or the 18th Century that helps minorities or strengthens people's civil rights. Now that is fu**ed up!

And what is really Fu**ed up is that you think you voted for civil rights in 64...but what about 1960, or 1958 or any of the 33 civil rights bills since the 1930'https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409Did you even know there were 33 civil rights bills since the 30's?

136 Republicans voted for civil rights and 35 did not equaling 79%
vs
153 democrats voting for and 91 voting against equaling 62%
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

And it gets worse for democrats on the senate vote:

Republicans voted 27 for and six against equaling 81 percent.
vs

Democrats voting 46 for and 21 against for 68 % for rate.

What is Fu**ed up is that 100 years later and even 150 years later Republicans are still having to fix democratic mess ups on civil rights.

 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
Did ya ever notice that when a democratic of the 21st century wants to talk about what they have actually done for civil rights they have nowhere to go back at all. The only time they voted for civil rights they voted at a much lower percentage rate than Republicans

Something is pretty f**ked up when you have never done something decent, your democratic party has to blame Republicans for giving civil rights. These cretins aka demcocratics cant' t even point to a single thing they've done THIS CENTURY, LAST CENTURY, or the 18TH CENTURY that helps minorities or strengthens people's civil rights. Now that is fu**ed up!

And what is really Fu**ed up is that you think you voted for civil rights in 64...but what about 1960, or 1958 or any of the 33 civil rights bills since the 1930'https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409Did you even know there were 33 civil rights bills since the 30's?

136 Republicans voted for civil rights and 35 did not equaling 79%
vs
153 Democrats voting for and 91 voting against equaling 62%
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

And it gets worse for Democrats on the senate vote:

Republicans voted 27 for and six against equaling 81 percent.
vs

Democratics voting 46 for and 21 against for 68 % for rate.

What is Fu**ed up is that 100 years later and even 150 years later Republicans are still having to fix democratic mess ups on civil rights.

You mean the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? The one that typically gets more than 80% of black votes? That party? I wonder why all of those black people are voting (D)?

You mean the party that fights against republican gerrymandering that minimizes black voting strength. You mean the party that fights against GOP voter disenfranchisement efforts? That party?
 

Colorforms

Senator
You mean the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? The one that typically gets more than 80% of black votes? That party? I wonder why all of those black people are voting (D)?

You mean the party that fights against republican gerrymandering that minimizes black voting strength. You mean the party that fights against GOP voter disenfranchisement efforts? That party?
No, we mean the democrat party that runs most of the inner city areas where blacks are kept in substandard schools. The democrat part that thinks that blacks are either too stupid or incompetent to get a free ID card, the democrat party that is, and has always been, on the wrong side of civil rights.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
No, we mean the democrat party that runs most of the inner city areas where blacks are kept in substandard schools. The democrat part that thinks that blacks are either too stupid or incompetent to get a free ID card, the democrat party that is, and has always been, on the wrong side of civil rights.
Can you name any big city run my republicans that doesn't have exactly the same problem?

And you still can't tell me why if the democrats are so bad and the GOP is so good then why can't you convince more than 15% of black voters to vote (R). We both know the reason....

YOU CAN'T SPELL RACIST without the (R)
 

Colorforms

Senator
Can you name any big city run my republicans that doesn't have exactly the same problem?

And you still can't tell me why if the democrats are so bad and the GOP is so good then why can't you convince more than 15% of black voters to vote (R). We both know the reason....

YOU CAN'T SPELL RACIST without the (R)
The only big city I know of run by a republican is Guliani and New York. Under his tenure crime went down significantly. Your premise is faulty.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
The only big city I know of run by a republican is Guliani and New York. Under his tenure crime went down significantly. Your premise is faulty.

Crime went down in every other big city at the same time Gulianni was mayor of NYC. And if you want to tell the truth tell me again how the black communities of NYC prospered when he was mayor again? They voted against him and protested him every step of the way. You can't even name a big city run by a republican today. And the one city you did mention had (and still has) some of the worst neighborhoods in the country. So much for conservative governance making anything better.
 

Colorforms

Senator
Crime went down in every other big city at the same time Gulianni was mayor of NYC. And if you want to tell the truth tell me again how the black communities of NYC prospered when he was mayor again? They voted against him and protested him every step of the way. You can't even name a big city run by a republican today. And the one city you did mention had (and still has) some of the worst neighborhoods in the country. So much for conservative governance making anything better.
You are the one who is trying to compare the craptacular leftist civil rights record to a republican running a big city. Like I said, I don't know of any. All of the craptacular cities are run by democrats. So if you have another way of trying to argue that democrats don't suck at civil rights, you may want to find another argument.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
You are the one who is trying to compare the craptacular leftist civil rights record to a republican running a big city. Like I said, I don't know of any. All of the craptacular cities are run by democrats. So if you have another way of trying to argue that democrats don't suck at civil rights, you may want to find another argument.
So your argument fails. You blamed the (D)s for poverty that exists in big cities. You tried to claim that Giuliani brought down crime when in fact he did not such thing. Crime went down because of the demographics of the country. Guliani did nothing to help the poverty in NYC and was disliked by the black community. And you cannot even name one single big city run by republicans much less one where black poverty has gotten better.

You failed on all counts.

Yeah - you vote (R).
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
You mean the DEMOCRATIC PARTY? The one that typically gets more than 80% of black votes? That party? I wonder why all of those black people are voting (D)?

You mean the party that fights against republican gerrymandering that minimizes black voting strength. You mean the party that fights against GOP voter disenfranchisement efforts? That party?
PNWest still thinks he can own Black people. You lost last election because of Black people would not vote for your racist Southern Democratic candidate.

1. There is nothing democratic about your party.

2. Elbridge Gerry the reason for gerrymandering was a democratic.

But nice of you to try and claim black voters and not mention how you bought them with welfare.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
So your argument fails. You blamed the (D)s for poverty that exists in big cities. You tried to claim that Giuliani brought down crime when in fact he did not such thing. Crime went down because of the demographics of the country. Guliani did nothing to help the poverty in NYC and was disliked by the black community. And you cannot even name one single big city run by republicans much less one where black poverty has gotten better.

You failed on all counts.

Yeah - you vote (R).


Not really!

Way to lose the civil rights battle.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
You are the one who is trying to compare the craptacular leftist civil rights record to a republican running a big city. Like I said, I don't know of any. All of the craptacular cities are run by democrats. So if you have another way of trying to argue that democrats don't suck at civil rights, you may want to find another argument.
He did find another argument
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
Can you name any big city run my republicans that doesn't have exactly the same problem?

And you still can't tell me why if the democrats are so bad and the GOP is so good then why can't you convince more than 15% of black voters to vote (R). We both know the reason....

YOU CAN'T SPELL RACIST without the (R)
We know the reason...Slavery...It's just another word for welfare.
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan


Not really!

Way to lose the civil rights battle.
Guiliani was Mayor of Newark? Crime went down far more in Newark under a Democratic mayor than in NYC? And LA - check out the party of the Mayor there during the same period. Seems to me by your own chart democratic mayor in Newark did better than Guliani and the republican mayor of LA did slightly worse. Heck of a graph Drummie.
 

Colorforms

Senator
So your argument fails. You blamed the (D)s for poverty that exists in big cities. You tried to claim that Giuliani brought down crime when in fact he did not such thing. Crime went down because of the demographics of the country. Guliani did nothing to help the poverty in NYC and was disliked by the black community. And you cannot even name one single big city run by republicans much less one where black poverty has gotten better.

You failed on all counts.

Yeah - you vote (R).
My argument is that there are no craptacular cities being run by republicans. But since you obviously have no answer for why every inner city craphole is run by a democrat, I will assume this is your attempt to run from the subject.

Sorry you were so ill prepared. Maybe next time. :)
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
My argument is that there are no craptacular cities being run by republicans. But since you obviously have no answer for why every inner city craphole is run by a democrat, I will assume this is your attempt to run from the subject.

Sorry you were so ill prepared. Maybe next time. :)
Go ahead and run away. I beat you like a rented mule using your own chart. You tried to show how well Guliani did as mayor and your very own chart showed that right across the river from NYC a democratic mayor had far better results during the same time frame.

Loser.
 

Colorforms

Senator
Go ahead and run away. I beat you like a rented mule using your own chart. You tried to show how well Guliani did as mayor and your very own chart showed that right across the river from NYC a democratic mayor had far better results during the same time frame.

Loser.
If you think so, then there is no force on earth that will ever convince you otherwise. Since you are still running from the actual statement, however, I will just have to assume that you know democrats are bad for minorities and you're trying desperately to focus on something completely unrelated.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night. :)
 

PNWest

America's BEST American: Impartial and Bipartisan
If you think so, then there is no force on earth that will ever convince you otherwise. Since you are still running from the actual statement, however, I will just have to assume that you know democrats are bad for minorities and you're trying desperately to focus on something completely unrelated.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night. :)
Funny how if your statement was true that typically 85% or more of black voters vote AGAINST the GOP. Wonder why that is?

You can't spell RACIST without the (R).

And it drives you up the wall that I keep hammering you righties on it. 85% vote against you. What does that say?
 
Top