what kept the rockefeller republicans and the conservatives under

>>1830346
Nixon helped bridge the gap between the two. He endorsed Goldwater in '64, pursued the Southern Strategy in '68, and was a middle-class westerner, like the conservatives. However, he was far more moderate than the conservatives, wishing to preserve the New Deal state, if not expand it (created the EPA). He supported all of Ike's civil rights efforts

>>1830388
>southern strategy
>let's go and ensure racists doesn't have the ability to do their racists acts
>i'm sure the southern racists will love us for it

>>1830625
>if we crack down on niggers, but we don't say it's because of niggers, the racists will like us, and the liberals won't care

t. every US president since the civil rights movement

>>1830639
>thinking that ending segregation, opening the chinese markets, restablishing native american relations, ending racial busing, and starting affirmative action is "cracking down on niggers"
>still thinks that all presidents before the civil rights movement were racists.
>still thinks that the liberals are the default good guys.

>>1830648
>what is the war on drugs

Every US president since the civil rights era has had to balance racists and SJWs to maintain power.

It's just that they can't go out and say "I'm gonna stomp some niggers" so they couch it in terms of law and order.

>>1830654
>a prohibition on drugs = discriminating blacks
>as if the concern about drug use only implicates blacks.
>being said against a president who essentially gave blacks the golden ticket to higher education

if nixon was a racists he would have been the worst racist ever, getting black people out from drugs and giving them a whole grade advantage over other students in university placements.

>>1830665
>>a prohibition on drugs = discriminating blacks
spoken like a true whitey
it's not an issue of the rhetoric of policy, but how that policy manifests itself in the black community. you're also clearly ignoring the "law and order" movement that Nixon heavily, heavily backed

>>1830676
>thinking that cracking down on drugs and crimes means to inherently discriminate against blacks

such an assertion would mean that blacks are more prone to become criminals and drug addicts irregardless of the environmental factors aiding them. Are you even willing to equate drug use and crime to black people?

rhetoric of policy? What? so if someone were to pass a bill about giving blacks more advantages in life but he also decides to crack down on crime, then that still makes him a racists because he didn't give enough care to let crime run rampant in his country?

>>1830704
>such an assertion would mean that blacks are more prone to become criminals and drug addicts irregardless of the environmental factors aiding them
congratulations, you managed to be exactly wrong.
blacks are more prone to being criminals and drug addicts because a disproportionate amount of them are poor, and poverty lends itself to crime and drugs.
>Are you even willing to equate drug use and crime to black people?
quit being so politically correct.
>so if someone were to pass a bill about giving blacks more advantages in life but he also decides to crack down on crime, then that still makes him a racists because he didn't give enough care to let crime run rampant in his country
no but the policy of cracking down on crime appeals to racist voters because such crackdowns end up assfucking minorities. notice how the "law and order" cries (third time ignoring that, good job) started up around the same time that nignogs were rioting in great numbers.
yes Nixon's social policies helped minorities, nobody here's disputing that despite your delusions. but his rhetoric about being tough on crime appealed to racist voters because to them it meant that a bunch of darkies are gonna get their shit pushed in by cops.

>>1830704
>such an assertion would mean that blacks are more prone to become criminals and drug addicts irregardless of the environmental factors aiding them

That or they're more likely to be arrested for drug related crimes, regardless of the actual amount of drug use in the community.

>>1830723
>blacks are more prone to being criminals and drug addicts because a disproportionate amount of them are poor, and poverty lends itself to crime and drugs.
yet again, he gave them a golden ticket to prosperity through affirmative action.
and people were poor all around the country, there's a larger population of poor white people than there is blacks in this country, if your assertion was correct, then nixon was also targeting whites.

>notice how the "law and order" cries (third time ignoring that, good job) started up around the same time that nignogs were rioting in great numbers.

maybe it isn't about nignogs rioting, but the act of rioting itself that created the policy of law and order. and I didn't ignore your "law and order" argument, its incorporated to my past reply, you're just too stupid to notice.

Do you really think that people cared about rhetoric more than policies? as if people will still smile as you shank them with a knife as long as you are keeping a good conversation going.

No, i wasn't being politcally correct, but its baffling that you have such a vested interest to make this president a racist? his policies were far from racists

there's something utterly wrong with how you perceive the world, anything that might have affected blacks in a negative way means that it was purposely done to bring them down.

>>1830874
>yet again, he gave them a golden ticket to prosperity through affirmative action.
vastly overestimating the power of affirmative action. notice how well that golden ticket has done in getting the black community on its feet?
>and people were poor all around the country, there's a larger population of poor white people than there is blacks in this country, if your assertion was correct, then nixon was also targeting whites.
yes but the demographics of who is targeted in crime crackdowns are massively skewed, as >>1830743 pointed out. maybe if you'd get out of the /pol/ echo chamber you'd see this routinely proven fact.
>maybe it isn't about nignogs rioting, but the act of rioting itself that created the policy of law and order
yes but who was rioting at the time? blacks. that's why a policy that would crack down on those riots would have a special appeal to racist voters. it's painfully obvious to everyone who isn't a retard (although you clearly aren't in that demographic).
>Do you really think that people cared about rhetoric more than policies?
look at this fucking election you idiot. of course they do.
>as if people will still smile as you shank them with a knife as long as you are keeping a good conversation going.
shit metaphor, as expected.
>No, i wasn't being politcally correct, but its baffling that you have such a vested interest to make this president a racist?
when did i say he was a racist? for the second time i'll say that he had policies that helped minorities. nobody would ever dispute that. However, the Southern strategy and law and order talk is clearly targeted to elicit favor from racist voters, and the war on drugs helped drive in systematic racism due to its disproportionate effect on minorities.
>his policies were far from racists
some were, some weren't. everyone else understands this but your dumb ass. i suppose you think the South shifted to the Republicans because of magic

>>1830874
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0DEEDE1030E034BC4B52DFBE668383679EDE&legacy=true

here's a source for you. educate yourself

>>1831031
>vastly overestimating the power of affirmative action. notice how well that golden ticket has done in getting the black community on its feet?
The problem of the black community has less to do with government policy and has more to do with the culture that plagues it.
Any other culture who had the same advantages as the blacks would have already wiped the floor in the U.S. you act as if blacks has no agency in this world
>yes but the demographics of who is targeted in crime crackdowns are massively skewed,
Which means that blacks overwhelming did crime or did drugs irregardless of their level of wealth.
the white population has a poverty rate of 18.3% and the black population has a poverty rate of 26.1%, consindering that america is 64% white and only 13% black shows that in total number whites are more pronounced in poverty than blacks, crime statistics also show this seeing that crimes from illegal possesion of drugs, minor dui, liquor laws happen at the same rate
>yes but who was rioting at the time? blacks. that's why a policy that would crack down on those riots would have a special appeal to racist voters.
Would have been the same thing if whites would have rioted or there was a crime wave that blanketed the nation. Do you really think that a U.S president would do nothing if the riots and crimes were done by whites?
>Do you really think that people cared about rhetoric more than policies?
A presidential term isn't just solely about the election season you idiot, if the southern strategy was to attract racists, then they should have employed policies that would attract racists, not people who wanted order, not people who wanted affirmative action, not people who wanted peace in their communities.
> Southern strategy and law and order talk is clearly targeted to elicit favor from racist voters, and the war on drugs helped drive in systematic racism due to its disproportionate effect on minorities.
Again, just talks about it doesn't do anything.

>>1831101
cont:
again, just talking about it doesn't do anything when you also make policies that goes against what you talk about.

>>1831101
>Any other culture who had the same advantages as the blacks would have already wiped the floor in the U.S
yeah like the Mexicans. they're killing it.
typical /pol/ whitey that pretends like he knows everything about the nignog life. you've probably never even seen one IRL
>Which means that blacks overwhelming did crime or did drugs irregardless of their level of wealth.
or it means that our criminal justice system is racially biased, a statement which the Justice Department believes true based off their Ferguson findings.
>Would have been the same thing if whites would have rioted or there was a crime wave that blanketed the nation. Do you really think that a U.S president would do nothing if the riots and crimes were done by whites?
Hypothetical, wishful thinking. Doesn't change the fact that most rioters at the time were blacks, so policies that would be tough on said rioters would have special appeal to racists.
>A presidential term isn't just solely about the election season you idiot,
but we're talking about an election strategy of pandering to calls for law and order are we not? and you're acting like presidential policies are meant to exclusively be racist or anti-racist. as >>1830654 pointed out it's a balance of power.
>if the southern strategy was to attract racists, then they should have employed policies that would attract racists,
like being tough on crime, which racists love cuz it means more darkies getting arrested.
>not people who wanted order,
many of whom overlapped with racists. again as >>1830654 pointed out you can't come out as blatantly racist, you have to have policies that would be palatable to them. law and order and a war on drugs is such a policy, and everyone agrees but your dumb ass.

>>1831101
>not people who wanted affirmative action, not people who wanted peace in their communities.
again, his policy positions aren't all for racists. that's why >>1830388 noted he was a BRIDGE between the rockefeller repubs and the conservatives because his presidency had aspects of both. he had appeal to racists via southern strategy tough-on-crime-and-drugs policies but he also had appeals to liberals with affirmative action in the like. your small brain can't understand a grey scenario, but that's exactly what Nixon was. You'll probably put words in my mouth again with the "then why u think Nixon racis" again but all historical evidence points to complexity. If you don't think there's a racial element in the appeal to law and order and drug crackdowns then you're beyond delusional.
>Again, just talks about it doesn't do anything.
it's called the fucking War on Drugs idiot. plus the southern strategy was primarily a campaigning strategy. Again, do you think he won 49 states and helped turn the south red because of magic? or are you naive enough to think that everyone stopped being racist in 1964?

>it's another southern strategy realigned america episode

anybody who thinks the southern strategy was anything bigger than a campaign strategy during 68' is an idiot.

>>1831160
you have gotten used to using /pol/ as the crutch for your arguments?
And? asians, are being negatively discouraged by affirmative action yet they succeed in spectacular rates in most elements of american life, I guess we should have discouraged blacks instead.
> it means that our criminal justice system is racially biased, a statement which the Justice Department believes true based off their Ferguson findings.
name me a specific law that is racists in intent?
also the reason why blacks were being imprisoned in higher rates in ferguson is because blacks in that area are more prone to crime. cops aren't racists for that, They were just trying to instill order in the area. If you think police trying to restore order and peace is racists then that might be an indicator as to why black communities are such shit shows.
>like being tough on crime, which racists love cuz it means more darkies getting arrested.
being tough on crime doesn't mean that one desires to have blacks into prisons, It just means that the president wants more order. again, the law and order administration happened in an era wherein EVEN IN PREDOMINATELY WHITE STATES, crime was rising. wouldn't that policy hurt whites too? wouldn't the uneducated whites also get ruined by nixon's policies? as i've said, crimes relating to buglary, liquor laws, DUIs and possession of drugs occur in equal rates between whites and blacks

>>1831169
you have to divorce that idea of intent with results.
I could have a racists intent of removing affirmative action, but the result could have been beneficial to blacks, I could have a non-racist intent to impose more law and order during america's crime ridden era but have it a dispropriate effect on blacks.
Also why is it the states fault for trying to impose order? isn't it beholden on the individual to atleast follow these laws to the best of their abilities, it didn't rescind any of their constitutional rights, all they have to do is correct their behavior and fix their communities.

>>1831198
>you have gotten used to using /pol/ as the crutch for your arguments?
naive statements in regard to the nature of race relations and thinking your beliefs are superior to the vast majority of experts are very /pol/ qualities
>asians, are being negatively discouraged by affirmative action yet they succeed in spectacular rates in most elements of american life
so we agree that affirmative action isn't the "golden ticket" you earlier claimed it was

>name me a specific law that is racists in intent?
it's not a legislative issue, it's an enforcement issue. when you're black those laws are more likely to be strictly enforced against you (see incarceration rights for similar crimes white v black).

>you have to divorce that idea of intent with results.
and you have to divorce appeal to racism from blatant racist policies. as >>1831184 pointed out southern strategy was a campaign strategy that appeal to conservative-minded (often racist) voters, and symbolized how Nixon had dual Rockefeller/Goldwater qualities.

now you're derailing the conversation from the appeal that law and order policies have to the merits of the policies themselves. it ain't /his/, and you're too deluded to see blatantly obvious facts so it ain't worth it.

>>1831250
>thinking your beliefs are superior to the vast majority of experts are very /pol/ qualities
how is this /pol/ aren't you guilty of the same thing? aren't every in this board guilty of the same thing?
>"so we agree that affirmative action isn't the "golden ticket" you earlier claimed it was" it is a golden ticket, just because your communities couldn't use it to the best extent and floundered the opportunity for an easy way to prosperity doesn't mean its still not a golden ticket.
Yet there are laws that prohibit state workers from acting solely on race. The reason why blacks are incarcerated more isn't because the police were racists, its just that blacks do more crime for whatever reason and that white arrests aren't really that popularized in america.
from the appeal? you mean from the intent of law and order policies to its merit. I do admit that such policies have incarcerated blacks more, but you haven't proven if there really was a racists intent on the laws. You said it was to appeal to the racists who wants order and law to be established, well, i pointed out that whites and blacks commit the same number of crimes regarding drug possesion, dui, burglaries, and liquor laws abiet in different rates, this is more pronounced in the south actually since non-educated whites seem to also fall prey to the allure of crime. A law and order policy would have negatively affected both black and white.
and you're treating it as if rhetoric is the only thing that people look at, ofcourse people looked at nixon's policies and it overwhelming wasn't racists, why would racists join a party that prevented them from segregating blacks, from making buses have white and black buses. from giving them a massive one up in life. If i was a genuine racists, I would have hated nixon.

>>1831250
is that the reason why you push this narrative so vehemently? so you can just call republicans racists?

>>1831347

I don't know. Republican actions tend to be unfavorable to minorities. Not sure if they are that racist though. Maybe just a little.

>>1831423
since we have obviously crossed the line between politics and history, I'll place my take on it.

identity politics is the thing that is ruining this nation. Republicans aren't racists, just as democrats aren't racists, there are individuals in those parties that are racists but to negate an entire ideology or way of governance just because of some individuals.

>>1831438

Again. I don't know. The Republicans in the state government know that Blacks tend to vote Democrat.

So they gerrymandered many districts to break up the black vote and make it so Republicans get majorities in congress.

Maybe that's not actually racist, but apparently they don't care about the black vote.

>>1831458
gerrymandering is a big allegation, but the liberals often do the samething, they even bus people into areas to ensure that they get majority in those areas.

>>1831555

>allegation

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-brag-they-won-house-majority-because-of-gerrymandering-b8dd46d6c355#.a0bfg930c

>>1831438
>Republicans aren't racists, just as democrats aren't racists
Yet I struggle to come to terms on why would anyone sane of mind would push policies against their own self-interest, except the tacit, abstract idea that these policies might hurt minorities.

Every time you hear a republican voter cutting down on stuff like welfare, that kind of stuff is 1) contrary to their interests as a citizen looking to diminish the gap between the rich and the poor 2) racist dog-whistling as impoverished minorities end up getting hurt the most, and because them blackies will get fucked up royally, I support it.

>>1831618
If you studied economics you might realise that cutting things like welfare is often necessary.

>>1831581
you're gonna use a progressive site as your source for political news? might as well do this then
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/liberals-democrats/the-truth-about-race-gerrymandering-and-the-democrats-house-of-representatives/
>>1831618
maybe you just don't think as they do, They think in terms of culture and how those policies might adversely ruin the work ethic of the people in their communities.
welfare creates a negative behavioral incentive. which means that it instills a behavior of reliance on government support rather than pushing people to achieve things. alot of normal, abled-bodied, individuals gave up on life because they felt contented on the welfare they receive.
secondly, they believe that the best way to improve their lot of life is just to be left alone and to let them decide their destinies. Its in the mindset of most republican voters that liberty is main propenent of progress and that as they have been given the right to dictate the terms of the future without impediment, it should also be given to everyone else irregardless of their social standing or monetary wealth. Also they believe that an economy is an ecosystem that relies on the existence of rich individuals, middle class, and low wage earners and also understands that wealth often floshes around in generations (almosts 90% of what we have deemed rich often looses their fortune after their third generation).
dog-whistling? you mean just being good citizens and reporting criminals?

>>1831641
Even Friedman supported a version of universal basic income. Cutting welfare is more often than not, counterproductive and decreases local spending as people become weary of their expenses in order to subsist.

>negative behavioral incentive
U MENA RACIST STEREOTYPES BOYO

>>1831662
welfare is fine, as long as it doesn't impose negative behavioral incentive. let's not just leave it as if freidman desires a very normal version of welfare. he wants a set rate, yes, but only for subsistence living and for it to be tied to the amount of hours a person working hours and monthly earnings (as higher your pay rises, the welfare recieved lowers in the same proportion), which prevents individuals from living on welfare and also prevents that psychological pull of abstaining from work.

Aggregate demand does help in certain situations, but america isn't in a spending crisis, quite the opposite actually, we are in a heat of spending and our country is suffering from a lack of savings and supply, hence the steady increase of inflation.

and no, negative behavioral incentives doesn't equat to racists stereotypes, a physical manifestation (often monetary) of the things that is affecting him/her is much stronger than some person's opinion of someone.

>>1830346
The fact that the business wing of the party could get poor and uneducated whites to do anything they asked as long as they made it clear it would hurt blacks. Trump is the natural culmination of this and it's hilarious watching the business wing of the GOP be so surprised that encouraging racism among the population for votes for 50 years would lead to an openly racist campaign. They shit the bed and now they realize they have to lay in it.