Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[abucs]

I don’t agree with the accuracy or completeness of your narrative.

These are very generalised words that don’t engage meaningfully with any of the points raised.

We cannot have a discussion if you feel the need to respond critically to what is said but then retreat when it is time to discuss points of fact.

Political correctness used to allow people to do this. It does not work now.

 

[JonNC]

The shooting of Michael Brown was shown to be justified. The Ferguson police department, on the other hand, had been treating the black community horribly, as shown by the report of the Department of Justice’s investigation. And I would say that report is pretty good evidence of the institutional racism of the town of Ferguson (not just the police department), who had been treating the poor black community as a piggy bank.

Yes. That’s what I said. That, to me, can be classified as institutional.

Less tangible is my own observation that schools in black neighborhoods in New York City are not cleaned and maintained as well as schools in white neighborhoods, despite having the same budgets and equivalent physical plants. I have seen this. I would say that’s an example of institutional racism, perhaps unconscious.

I would not, on the face of it. It might just be lousy custodial crews. It might be custodians with bias. But that isn’t institutional racism.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Addressed and refuted point by point

Clever polemics.
But the voting demographics tell the honest story…

Except that the voting demographics changed in the 1930s not the 1960s, with the "New Deal between 1932 and 1936, so they can’t tell your version of the “honest” story. As well, Nixon’s “southern strategy” wasn’t the factor some claim because Wallace, a Democrat, won the Deep South in the 1970s. DeSouza addresses both these questions of “demographics” after 42:00 in the video.

It is also a fact that no politicians actually changed sides, except Thurmond and possibly one other. Both Obama and Clinton attended Robert Byrd’s funeral and lavished praises on him. Byrd was a KKK Grand Dragon and he didn’t become Republican but stayed Democrat.

Care to cite some of those demographics?

 

[HarryStotle]

I do praise the 18th century Republicans for what they did. And of course anti-slavery is now accepted by both parties. But I doubt that you can ascribe this act in the 18th century to an underlying philosophy that not changed over the years. The only thing that has remained the same is the name.

Nope. The more crucial thing that remained the same is the socialist slavery ideology of “You work, I eat.” It is just that the “slaves” have changed from an identifiable minority to those with money and a work ethic who will provide for those without either, but are willing, in sufficient numbers, to vote Dem.

 

[Theo520]

But in the present day the situation is reversed. And the current voting patterns reflect that present reality.

We’ve gone through this before.
Stop repeating the “southern strategy” which has been thoroughly debunked.
It’s a progressive lie to cover the truth that their party was once stocked with racists.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Accusing someone of racism, even if the accusation is groundless, is not racism. It is bad, certainly, but it is not racism.

The motivation is race-based. It’s racism.

That’s not the definition of racism.

The claim that someone does or believes something, typically negative, based on their race, or about the race of others, is racism.

Had DeSantis been black and used the same words, no accusation would have been made. It is because he is white (and Republican, of course) that the accusation is made.
That the accusation is made due to his race, that makes it racist.

 

[JonNC]

We’ve gone through this before.
Stop repeating the “southern strategy” which has been thoroughly debunked.
It’s a progressive lie to cover the truth that their party was once stocked with racists.

Worthy of repeating. I would only add that it may still be.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

dvdjs:

But in the present day the situation is reversed. And the current voting patterns reflect that present reality.

We’ve gone through this before.
Stop repeating the “southern strategy” which has been thoroughly debunked.
It’s a progressive lie to cover the truth that their party was once stocked with racists.

The “southern strategy” has not been “thoroughly debunked.” It has been vigorously disputed. The bar for “thoroughly debunked” is much higher than that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Accusing someone of racism, even if the accusation is groundless, is not racism. It is bad, certainly, but it is not racism.

The motivation is race-based. It’s racism.

That’s not the definition of racism.

The claim that someone does or believes something, typically negative, based on their race, or about the race of others, is racism.

Had DeSantis been black and used the same words, no accusation would have been made. It is because he is white (and Republican, of course) that the accusation is made.
That the accusation is made due to his race, that makes it racist.

You are speculating on what would have been had DeSantis been black and then using that speculation to support your further speculation as to the motives of those that accuse him of making a racist remark. It is still speculation.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Maybe DeSantis was engaging in counter-trolling.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you agree that the majority of blacks then continued voting for the Democratic Party even when the Democrats were introducing black segregation laws and running the violent KKK in support of those racist laws?

This is incorrect and it is highly presumptuous of the stupidity of blacks. Leaving aside the ridiculous assumption that blacks are too stupid to realize they are voting for people that are against their best interests (interests which you apparently can see quite clearly while they cannot), I will instead address the factual error. Democrats during the period you mention were not monolithic. They were not all promoting black segregation laws and running the KKK. Some were and some were not. The Democrats who won the black vote were those that did not promote those things. The Democrats who did those things did not win the black vote. It is too simplistic to consider all Democrats of that period as having the same identical position.

 

[Theo520]

The “southern strategy” has not been “thoroughly debunked.” It has been vigorously disputed. The bar for “thoroughly debunked” is much higher than that.

You have unsubstantiated story, I have facts.

It’s been debunked, don’t repeat lies.

The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’

The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had more to do with the South becoming Republican than anything related to race.

thehill.com

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ - The New York Times

 

[JonNC]

You are speculating on what would have been had DeSantis been black and then using that speculation to support your further speculation as to the motives of those that accuse him of making a racist remark. It is still speculation.

And everyone who speculates about “dog whistles” are making an accusation without evidence. If it isn’t racist, it is another form of evil.
This has been going on for decades, i for one will not let it go by unanswered.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have unsubstantiated story, I have facts.

(after boxes of facts and opinions spill and get mixed up)

Joy: “Oh no. These facts and opinions look so similar!.”

Bing-Bong: “Don’t worry about it. Happens all the time!”

(In case this Pixar reference is not clear, both of your “fact” references are actually opinions.)

 

[abucs]

ok a lot of incorrect things again. You are saying that my words say the blacks are too stupid. Again this is how you are taught to think about others which is a major problem for dialogue.

This is a working example of where you are taught to see racism that is not there. People often vote for a party for one reason even though it is detrimental to them in another area. This in no way is an indication of stupidity but a consideration of factors which is the opposite of stupidity.

I may vote for one party that acts in a way i disapprove of because their policies in another area will benefit me. That is not stupidity. Why do you feel the need to try and push that idea?

Blacks in the north may have voted for Democrats because of government benefits and not being affected by the Democratic segregation laws in the south. There is nothing stupid in that. They are your words for political purposes. I think it is a shame that blacks did this but they did. 'Stupidity of an entire race of people is a very big idea to try and attribute to another, especially when the other is trying to point out that this is what Democratic thinking does.

This is why many Democrats when they run out of rationality turn to seeing racism everywhere in their political opponents and dialogue is useless. This is part of the discussion we are having about the Democrats fantasy of Republican racism. It is nuts.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Blacks in the north may have voted for Democrats because of government benefits and not being affected by the Democratic segregation laws in the south.

This is a little more nuanced than your original claim, which was:

Do you agree that the majority of blacks then continued voting for the Democratic Party even when the Democrats were introducing black segregation laws and running the violent KKK in support of those racist laws?

In that claim you saw the Democrats as one unified party, promoting segregation and getting the black vote. Now you are recognizing that Democrats in the north had different views than Democrats in the south. Democrats in the south were for segregation, but Democrats in the north were not. You are now saying that Democrats in the north got the black vote because of perceived benefits to them. I agree. Do you also agree that Democrats in the south who were for segregation and the KKK were not getting the black vote?

It is also unclear if you mean Democrats running for state and local office or Democrats running for national office (such as Congress). Since you refer to southern segregation laws (which did not apply in the north) you must have been referring to state and local offices. In that case blacks who voted for northern Democrats had nothing to do with southern Democrats who were promoting local segregation laws. So there is nothing shameful about voting for a northern Democrat if you are a northern black. That local politician is not going to adversely affect southern blacks.

…fantasy of Republican racism. It is nuts…

It is indeed a fantasy. Most progressives do not think Republicans generally are racist. So this is what you call a straw man argument.

 

[HarryStotle]

I agree. The Republicans had an admirable progressive culture of opposing slavery. But it was progressive.

The Church was always against slavery, in principle. That is why many of the early Christians were slaves, including a pope.

I am pretty sure opposition to slavery existed from when the specter of slavery first rose up, by those who were enslaved. You aren’t claiming slaves were the first progressives, are you?

By those standards,mother barbarians that overthrew Rome were the “progressives.”

Good ethics, good moral principles and decent human beings were always around. Their influence, politically ebbed and flowed. The idea that humanity is “progressing” in a continual arc in goodness and enlightenment is a myth. Some of the worst large scale human moral failings have been fairly recent ones. Progress is a myth.

What honest conservatives attempt to conserve are sound foundational moral principles, which why there is always a tension within conservative ranks in terms of refining those and their implications.

The underlying and fundamental Democrat motivation is and always has been appealing to the majority rule – rule by numbers. That explains the complaints about electoral votes in the last election (I.e., that Hillary won the majority) and it explains why the Democratic Party is cobbling together a coalition of minorities and stressing identitarian politics, disparate those affiliations be, in order to secure power by sheer numbers. Finger in the wind and all that – no principles require preservation and the articulation of any principles whatsoever often becomes a stumbling block since that alienates some of the groups being wooed.

Better to identify and focus on a common enemy in the basest possible terms.

 

[Inisfallen]

Democrats during the period you mention were not monolithic

Exactly. Some in this thread seem to be making the claim that the Democratic Party is the party for all time, of, say, George Wallace, no matter how many years and what sort of events lie between then and now.

That makes no more more sense than insisting that Republican voters who cast their vote for Trump subscribe to the ideology of Nelson Rockefeller.

I mean, by that logic I could insist that, since Richard Nixon proposed (unsuccessfully) a national health insurance system, all Republicans support, right now, today, single-payer national health insurance.

This is false on the face of it.

 

[dvdjs]

We cannot have a discussion if you feel the need to respond critically to what is said

I think that I have responded to and pointed out the shortcoming of your basic point about Democrats and blacks. The more you seek to defend it, the more you venture into the realm of non-facts. There is no shortage of serious scholarship on this matter if you are interested in learning more.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The idea that humanity is “progressing” in a continual arc in goodness and enlightenment is a myth.

Another straw man. I have never equated progressiveness with goodness. Sometimes progress and change is in a bad direction, and then it is evil. Sometimes conservatism conserves something that is bad, and then it is evil. And sometimes both progressiveness and conservatism at different times are good. Good is good and evil is evil. We cannot abrogate our responsibility to judge good and evil by simply using proxy labels, like Progressive or Republican or Irish or scientist or community organizer or American or libertarian. All of these labels sometimes stand for something that is good and sometimes stand for something that is evil. The only sure way to judge good and evil is through the teachings of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the law written into our hearts by God.