We should ban the Democratic party

>>138595062
actually the parties switched since then. republicans were the ones who had slaves #fact

Maybe they're so postmodern they'll just disband themselves?

>>138595190
They didn't. That was a lie.

>>138595476
proof?

>>138595537
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj7OMmsrad0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jawf5/the_big_switch_is_a_lie_nobody_switched_the/

>>138595190
>actually the parties switched since then

You're an idiot

>>138595537
The burden of proof is on you to show they switched sides. Simply saying it does not qualify it as a true statement.

>>138595190
>no mommy I didn't eat all the cookies from the cookie jar it was my brother, we switched

>>138595190
>#fact

retard detected

>>138595062
Yeah, because one party rule sounds like it would be great for everyone and doesn't at all smack of regressive communist authoritarianism. You've gone so far right you're now alt left. Congrats.

>>138595190
>the parties switched
In what way?

I see the democrat party supports black people with words, but everything else they do IMO is a way of keeping black people poor and dependent on democrats just to maintain their level of poverty.

Republican principles benefit every man who follows them, regardless of skin color.

So just because the GOP doesn't specifically target black people doesn't mean they aren't the party that actually supports their wellbeing.

>>138596508
They have traded bases in key geographic and demographic areas. There was also a lot of middle ground before Reagan radicalized the right to extreme evangelical and corporate interests. Now there's no room for civil discourse.

File: Booker T Washington.jpg (116KB, 1000x568px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x568px

>>138596975
>I see the democrat party supports black people with words, but everything else they do IMO is a way of keeping black people poor and dependent on democrats just to maintain their level of poverty.

This.

>>138596975
>GOP doesn't specifically target black people...

Well except for cases of gerrymandering (Texas, 4 times since 2011, NC, Michigan, etc.)
Kovach and his interstate crosscheck.
Defending public education, food stamps and unemployment (welfare queens).
We can keep going, there's just a plethora of policies that the GOP holds for explicitly racist reasons.

>>138597395
>defunding
Damn auto-correct doesn't know words

>>138595537
looks like you got rekt bitch, not a surprise you stopped replying in your own thread

Wtf I love democrats now

The Democratic Party is utterly offensice to me and MUST be banned.

At a bare minimum, Democrats should be forced to announce themselves with triggerwarnings before they approach or enter the room or roam the street.

Something needs to be done about them. Their offensive behaviour is anti every thinkable human right.

>>138597043
So Reagan sold out to extreme corporate interests?

Good thing the Left has Hillary to help them fight that battle eh?

>>138597395
>We can keep going, there's just a plethora of policies that the GOP holds for explicitly racist reasons.
but you haven't named one. You listed a strategy that both sides use to gain ground, not a policy.

Yeah it's pretty funny mainstream parties accuse "extreme" right-wing parties for their nazi/criminal/radical past (like Sweden Democrats) when mostly all communist parties have horrifying pasts and Democrats were literally the party of KKK and slavery.

The Democrats and Republicans are almost identical.

Some individuals are more corrupt and deserve to be first in line for the rope, but that's about it.

>>138598434
You don't into think much do you. I named three, a strategy can be a policy, i.e. a policy of gerrymandering states so that opposition requires millions of more votes. As well the gerrymandering that has been found by a conservative supreme court to have divided districts by specifically race multiple time within single states in the past decade. But oh yeah, you're the fascist authoritarian who virtue signals racists while complaining about the left and identity politics. How hypocritical.

>>138598184
Is Trump or the republicans really any different?

File: 1503265803942.jpg (85KB, 500x626px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x626px

>>138595062
What i don't understand it's why nobody ever points these things out any single time some leftist imbecile even attempts to talk about race. I am literally destroying in debates every single italian race baiter i come across dropping this simple redpill for two years now, but i have yet to see someone more important than a literal nobody like me to spread the truth on national television.

Seriously, i am getting blackpilled fast these days. Everyone keeps cucking, nobody ever thinks of shouting inconvenient thruths outside of this board. Would it kill Donald Trump to simply tell every american to read an history book next time Democrats try to race bait?

>>138595190
I got through the first sentence before realising this is satire and you're mocking the usual response from these dumbass liberal millennial Democrats, nice b8 10/10

File: 1481758364005.jpg (32KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x360px

>>138599029
You're retarded. I'm gave no indication of being a fascist larper, but your accusation proves you're a leftist hack with no real arguments.
White people vote republican, the gerrymandering was along voting lines, that are only racial because of the way people vote. And like I sad, both sides do it, the dems have just been losing too much lately so they can't make it obvious.
Preventing voter fraud isn't racist just because you said it is. Those arguments are the weakest and most pathetic I have ever seen Voter fraud legislation comes from Republicans because the dems are the ones who have been openly cheating for years.
Pretty convenient how your "more white people use welfare" argument disappears as soon as you want to keep welfare. Welfare creates a dependent class that can't/won't do anything, and it should not be used as UBI. Nothing about race, except that most races vote differently than white people.

>>138599697
If you read the thread, or a history textbook, you'd understand that there's a lot more context that makes up the demographic consistent of the two party system. At best your red pill is a gross oversimplification, at worst it's an incredibly underhanded form of race baiting via false equivalency.

>>138599959
>nothing about race, other races vote different than white people.
What a glaring coincidence. I wonder why that is...

It's like you're literally saying you're not a racist, and even though members of the republican party have been demonstrably shown to be racists time and time again through their private musings and public policies, that you/republicans aren't the racists but everyone else is.

Capitalism, in this unfettered corpatist system we enjoy today, creates a dependent class. Jobs are shipped overseas undercutting the wages of the working class here at home, with less benefits and positivity for the future. And even so, people are needy. I don't want to live in a society where people die in the street die to lack of access to healthcare and food. Those people are resoundingly children and the elderly. So yeah you can virtue signal racist policies and claim that I don't have an argument but you're defense for these policies is rather week. Just saying "both sides do it" doesn't necessitate eradicating one of the sides out of hand because less white people vote for them per capita.

>>138600251
Correct me if i am wrong, but all i am seeing you do in this thread is accusing the GOP of electoral fraud, completely disregarding any point being made about the fact the Democrats were all about slavery and the KKK founders were all Democrats, and you accuse me of not having read the thread? You are essentially changing arguments and you accuse me of being underhanded?

Jesus Christ, i wonder why i even dignify you zombie commies with responses.

>>138601381
You're refusing to acknowledge the the demographics of the party have shifted in the past 150 years. Seems quite trite and since you're smart enough to use a computer, underhanded, in that you could actually look up the information you'd require to have at your disposal in order to make a more clear and factually centered argument. I'm the commie for arguing against the eradication of the democratic party which would absolutely leave the US with even more of a one party system... let that sink in. You're advocating a one party system and calling me a communist.

>>138601186
>demonstrably shown to be racists time and time again

gonna need a source for that, anon

>>138596975
Democrats are the party of the poor and oppressed. Therefore, it is in their best interest to create as many poor and oppressed people as they can in order to win elections.

>>138602553
Have you ever heard of Donald J Trump, the first NY Times piece on him back in the seventies was about how he and his father were predatory slum lords and treated black tenants more harshly than others. I believe there were charges brought up under the Carter administration. Jeff Sessions, a kkk sympathizer, and even though the "war on drugs" is a way for private prisons to profit off of black people, who are policed more than whites for the same crimes, Sessions want to amp it up. There's two who are in the current administration as of now, let's not get into Bannon, just yet.

>>138602869

especially if that means importing them from third world hellscapes

>>138602066
Here he comes again, "muh demographics of the party shifted" and shit...

What part of "we were discussing about how the Democrat party has defended slavery for years and that's a fact" you don't understand? No matter how virtuous the Democrats may be now (protip: they aren't: they are simply enslaving minorities by the careful use of gibsmedats, by gentrification and by other slimy tactics designed to render them dependant to them while at the same time keeping them down) the fact Democrats used to be pretty racist can't be ignored or dismissed, and this is why i feel that the left can't talk about race without sounding like giant hypocrites.

Also, where did i advocate for a one party system? Who said anything about that?

>>138603285
Did you not read the OP. logic would stand to reason that if you're arguing against the democratic party in this thread that you want to see it eliminated from opposition. Shifting demographics the democratic party used to represent the South, rural areas and now they represent the coasts, large cities in places that were considered the north. No, I'm not saying democrats are good, but it's better than one far right party having control of the entire nation when less than 30% of the voting public supports them.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (69KB, 800x742px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x742px

>>138599029
If blacks didn't vote along racial lines as a bloc then gerrymandering wouldn't reflect any racial distinctions.

>>138603011
> NY Times piece on him back in the seventies was about how he and his father were predatory slum lords and treated black tenants more harshly
> Jeff Sessions, a kkk sympathizer
need raciffs conviction proofs pl0x

You're racist (according to the akashic records) too but I don't have to prove it.

>>138604940
Republican sheriff arpaio, referred to illegal open air detention center for undocumented immigrants as his personal concentration camp. How patriotic.

>>138599697
Lincoln's actions are actually what led to the racists(not all of them but the most politically outspoken) to switch sides.
I mean he also started the fed which modern republicans have been demonising and trying to destroy for years.

I know it's fun to meme "le liberals and democraps are the real racists" but at least be honest with yourself, this board regularly calls for rights to literally be removed from non-whites.

>>138605289
Prove it for Trump and Sessions tho

>>138605429
There's also david duke who tried to rekindle the "good 'ol" democratic party of the south but the modern democrats didn't support a klansman and he didn't have any success until he ran as republican, he'll probably run again next opportunity and might even win after how he's been trying to hitch himself to trump's coattails.

>>138605531
How about you educate yourself? It's not that hard. Just close 4chan and google it. Read as many articles as you can. I'll be waiting.

File: 1496362771461.jpg (51KB, 768x960px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 768x960px

>>138595062
bump

>>138604464
Man, i can't go on like this. You are continuing to defend the Democrat party no matter what, and you are quite happy to ignore the fact that, if you guys are so incensed about slavery to form massive violent protests about it, then logic would dictate you to stop to identify yourselves with the party who started a civil war in order to keep the institution of slavery. You smash up Confederate statues and accuse the Republicans of being racist. What's your next move, rewriting history books and tell everyone that Lincoln was a Democrat and Davis was a Republican?

Man, i would be content with top Democrats having enough intellectual honesty to not fuel the flames without first admitting they were and still are responsible of the same racism the GOP shows. Change the name of your party, ask forgiveness from your mistakes and stop race baiting, because if you don't do that, you don't have any moral authority to browbeat the right. Is that too much to ask?

>>138606383
Troll you be trolling. Kind of like how Texas Instruments published history text books referring to people sold into and by the East Indies Trading Company "migrant workers" as opposed to the more colloquial term, slaves. Rabble all you want about muh heritage, changing history and whatever else. It doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of truth no matter how you skew the facts.

The only reason I'm defending the democratic party as an institution is because 1. The premise is false and 2. If the democratic party were eliminated that would necessarily mean one party rule by the party that represents the least people.

>>138595190
Robert bryd, the former Klansman was the majority leader in Congress in like 2008

>>138606144
You don't seem to be familiar with the concept of "burden of proof", you dirty (((cosmopolitan))).

>>138605429
What i am lamenting is the tendency leftists of any stripe have to call everyone who isn't them a racist and to completely disregard they certainly are not any better. Sure, conservatism had and still has many faults, i don't dispute that. But the left has no right to claim moral superiority when they themselves were the original defenders of the institution of slavery. It blows my mind they can talk shit about the american South without nobody pointing out THEY were the ones running the show in the South during that specific time frame.

>>138607383
I don't care, you're probably smart enough to look it up. I'm getting ready for work.

>>138607265
>If the democratic party were eliminated that would necessarily mean one party rule by the party that represents the least people.
Disagree here. There would be a rise in independent parties. Current Democrat voters would vote for independent before they'd vote for Cuckservatives. I don't believe that many people who currently vote Republican are content with the party itself, either. We would see a rise of independent parties.

>>138607552
What exactly was the "Southern Strategy" of the republican party based on?

File: Runaways%20Liberal%20Plantation.jpg (184KB, 598x820px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 598x820px

>>138607265
Ok, so let's recap: the Democrat Party are and were not slavers because reasons, and must continue to exist because there is absolutely no way an entirely new other left-of-center party (possibly a little more intellectually honest) can be formed. Bull Connor? Jim Crow? Margaret Sanger? Never heard of it, let's talk about that time Texas Instruments was racist.

That's why i am fast becoming blackpilled. I keep meeting a lot of people like you, who supports their political team with the same fanatism of soccer hooligans, facts be damned.

>>138599029
Gerrymandering is a counter to the libshit policy of setting up Section Ape housing in (and only in) white, Republican voting districts for the sole purpose of destroying the representation of the local voters.

You cannot talk about drawing new lines for voting districts without talking about how libshits have quite literally weaponized niggers and refugee populations to destroy white neighborhoods.

I mean, you could, but that would make you another lying kike spreading half truths to push a false agenda... and you wouldn't want to be a kike, would you Shlomo?

>>138608555
Ideally yes, but with republican gerrymandering already on an epic scale, the trappings of government being within their hands, millions more votes for the democrats and they still lose, how does that idealism really become reality? Yes I would prefer and often vote for independents as much as possible, but what's it worth in the long run when my views aren't represented because of the overwhelming influence of people like the kochs, soros, adelston, and the six other white guys that own both parties? How is that to be prevented?

>>138608914
You're being overly simplistic to the point that your argument is rendered disingenuous. It's not my political team. I'd prefer a political team that wasn't owned by copratists, but neither party is willing to set aside large private corporate donations and represent the people via publicly funded elections. There's just too much incentive for bad behavior. But sure, virtue signal your political team because that's your honest expression of free speech, regardless of how misguided and overly rhetorical it is.

>>138608687
From Wikipedia: "In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans". True, but you have to admit it's a little bit hypocritical to call out the Republicans while the Democrats themselves did the same things and worse? You are talking like i say the Republicans are all angels who never had a racist thought in their existence, and at the same time you refuse to even remotely consider the possibility Democrats may ever be at fault when racism is discussed.

>>138595476
>southern strategy
When republicans only way to survive was to be more racists than the Democrats. They have continued that today

>>138609015
This thread is supposed to be about how democrats are somehow more racists than republicans, I don't think you're shitposting correctly. Grab both ankles and let that sweet schwifty viscous effluent fluid out all over your screen and keyboard. Congrats, all you concern trolls, this guy sunk your battleship.

File: paper-kkk-small-81962.jpg (15KB, 600x866px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x866px

>>138595190
And yet you still call yourself by the HATEFUL AND EVIL name of the Democratic party
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY POC SHAKE EVERY TIME YOU EVEN BEING UP YOUR PARTY
WOW
SO
WHITE
OF
YOU

>>138609015
Don't forget that demoshits literally REQUIRE gerrymandering in a ton of places because of the voting rights act. Then they use that to complain about how much gerrymandering goes on.

They are the most disgusting fucking liars in existence right now and I'm glad that they're BTFO at every level over government and by all signs will continue to be for the next four years.

>>138595190
I've had people seriously claim this.
>After losing on slavery and civil rights, the democrats came up to the republicans and said "hey, we are done with this. Want to trade?"
>Republicans then said "well golly, I guess".
>This absolved the democrats of all wrong doing through the 60s and occasionally spats up til the 90s where dem candidates were still arguing in support of confederate flags.

Libtards actually believe this.

>>138610053
see
>>138596366

>>138595537
>#fact
>...p-proof?...
Back to kikebook with you to share another Vice headline

>>138596366
Lol the_donald. This board is fucking r*ddit

>>138610050
And yet you refuse to admit that the demographic make up of the parties has changed over the course of 150 years even though I've given specifics on the topic. The point is that the democratic party doesn't represent those ideas anymore and to claim that democrats alone bear the honus of responsibility for racism and the system of slavery in the US is a disingenuous argument. Furthermore, that to eliminate them completely from the political landscape and history as a whole, as per op, would be even worse for the conditions of race relations and working us citizens by and large.

>>138604464
Kek you're an idiot.

>>138610798
See>>138610050

>>138611043
>Furthermore, that to eliminate them completely from the political landscape and history as a whole, as per op, would be even worse for the conditions of race relations and working us citizens by and large.
wow it's almost like you understood the point of the article in the OP

almost

>>138595062
This is actually good logic

It's too bad libtards don't understand logic

>>138610053
The overhyped southern strategy was a term used by a reporter. Republicans wanting to make inroads in the south is supposed to be proof that they were more racist than the democrats who controlled the south. The key component of this argument is that the south can't possibly change over time and was/is/and forever will be a magical vortex of racism. Ignorant of the fact the north was and is pretty damn racist and being for/against slavery didn't mean you were or were not a racist.

>>138606144
Pretty dumb there, Anon. Good job at not providing necessary proofs. Fantastic work!

>>138611141
You know wikipedia is not allowed as a source in most college papers? There is a good reason for that.

>>138595062
In 1860 the Democratic Party refused to accept the outcome of a legitimate Presidential election.
History repeats. Hopefully only up to a point.

>>138607596
Good cop out! You did it! Go to work and make monies, deliver said monies to favorite democratic candidate, get back online, argue, rinse and repeat! Excellent work, Brainchild

>>138611043
Democratic Party is the collective controlling the individual. Races and identities are interchangeable as need be in the quest for Power over others. Chattel slavery is too obvious, now they use taxes, regulations, shame, insidious tools, easier to hide.

>>138610952
REEEEEE A FUCKING REDDIT POST EXPLAING THE PROOF THAT GUY WAS LOOKIMG FOR HOLY SHIT THIS ENTIRE BOARD IS R*DDIT REEEEEEEE

File: 1483267661922.jpg (108KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x768px

Ha

Now you just fucking watch.

All of this shit will get shut the fuck down overnight.

Just fucking watch.

>>138609231
>how does that idealism really become reality?
A beginning step would be to see support rising in a party before one of the two cucked parties render themselves irrelevant. To get the people familiar with it, at the very least in name (branding). I don't think it would take much for someone with ANY common sense and loyalty to the country to gain support. 2016 was proof regardless if it was ideal or not. The biggest hurdle for independents is that a lot of voters view them as a "throw away" vote because they don't want one of the two cuck parties to win, rather than vote in a way they feel represents them the best. With all of this Revolution larping lately, hopefully someone will take advantage of it.

>lobbying
Transparency and well vetted candidates should help the people decide. Unfortunately, scandals and webs of money laundering or transactions is kept somewhat secret, but it's becoming easier for the people to learn about them. I haven't thought of any viable, long term solutions to the lobbying issues but paid for politicians without regard for the people is definitely a problem. I understand the benefits of lobbying, but it's been out of control over the last couple of decades.

>>138595190
Retard detected

>>138612245
i don't even get why lobbying is a thing still. shitposting here is arguably just as effective

>>138596835
America was never supposed to have parties to begin with. Fuck off Commie

>>138595062
wtf I love democrats now

>>138610930
Trumpfags are cancer
>>138611318
They just stole most of the racist demographic of the Dems in the south

>>138611043
If i am being symplistic, it's because all i want from Democrats is a very simple thing: to them admitting they are hypocrites. If the Dems are now totally against slavery, then why they never publicly condemn their pasts? Don't you think people would probably respect them more if they do? I am not saying the Democrats are the only ones to blame for racism, i am pointing out the Democrats have yet to take their responsabilities on the whole issue of civil rights. I don't want to hear anything about party demographics nor corporatism because these are arguments who have nothing to do with the lack of comments about past Democratic transgression. Republicans surely fucked up, but they get a lot of flak for it. Democrats? Not so much.

>>138611586
So you aren't smart enough to lookout up? Anyhow, it was nice chatting with you fine folks. Let's do it again tomorrow.

>>138612573
Capital for exposure.
Helping companies with interests that align with you or your party that can or will damage your opponent.

That's off the top of my head. There's personal incentive for it, too. Taking that out of the equation though, the above two reasons are valid when there's competition. Maybe blockchain or crypto could be an alternative? I've seen it tossed around a few times but I'm not completely sold on the idea, but it's worth exploring.

>>138595062
>Today's whites had nothing to do with slavery and shouldnt be blamed for it
>Today's Democrats are the same people that wanted slavery.

Pick one.

>>138613288
They can't condemn their past because they're still the race baiting, lying party they always were. They'll switch to whatever race or group they think they can have control over instead of upholding principles. Identity politics is their game.

>>138613288
Maybe they marched for civil rights because they wanted to somewhat make up for their past transgressions

>>138595062

I assume the author of this article as since been lynched on the midway?

>>138603011
Proving once again that the Jew York Times has always been very fake news.

>>138614015
Can't they specifically point out this then, instead of keeping everyone guessing? Because somebody could think they are smashing all those Confederate statues and fighting the KKK only because they want to cover up their involvement.