Instigator / Pro
16
1495
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#1018
The Democratic party is the party of fascism,intolerance and racism.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
15
Better sources
6
10
Better legibility
4
5
Better conduct
0
5
After 5 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
35
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. THE PROGRESSIVE NARRATIVE IS A LIE.
In
reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the
party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft. The Democrats are
not the party of justice or equality, but rather, of systematic injustice and
inequality. Far from championing the cause of women, blacks, and other
minorities, Democrats have historically brutalized, segregated, exploited, and
murdered the most vulnerable members of our society.
During all this time, the main opposition to these horrors on the part of the Democratic Party came from Republicans. Of all Americans,Republicans are the ones who have the least reason to feel guilty about slavery or racism. This claim comes as a surprise because Republicans are the ones who are regularly chastised by progressives for their alleged bigotry. Let’s see who the real bigots are.
From the beginning, Republicans have been the good guys, fighting to stop Democratic schemes of exploitation, murder, and plunder. Republicans fought a great war, and hundreds of thousands of them died, to thwart the nefarious practices of the Democrats. Even after slavery, Republicans fought vigorously though not always successfully to defeat Democratic schemes of segregation and racial terrorism.
The bad guys—the Democrats—put up a great fight but the Republicans won in the end. It was Republicans who made possible the Civil Rights laws that finally and belatedly secured equal rights for blacks and other minorities. Democrats are the ones who bitterly resisted the Civil Rights Movement, and had the Democrats been the only party in America at the time, none of these laws, from the Civil Rights Act to the Voting Rights Act to the Fair Housing Bill, would have passed. As I will show, American history is really the story of Democratic malefactors and Republican heroes. I begin with Andrew Jackson. He—not Thomas Jefferson or FDR—is the true
founder of the modern Democratic Party.
I support the debunking of Jackson, but not because he was a bad American—rather, because he was a typical, crooked Democrat. Jackson established the Democratic Party as the party of theft. He mastered the art of stealing land from the Indians and then selling it at giveaway prices to white settlers. Jackson’s expectation was that those people would support him politically, as indeed they did. Jackson was indeed a “man of the people,” but his popularity was that of a gang leader who distributes his spoils in exchange for loyalty on the part of those who benefit from his crimes.
Jackson also figured out how to benefit personally from his landstealing. Like Hillary Clinton, he started out broke and then became one of the richest people in the country. How?
Jackson and his partners and cronies made early bids on Indian land, sometimes even before the Indians had been evacuated from that land. They acquired the land for little or nothing and later sold it for a handsome profit. Remarkably, the roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the landstealing policies of America’s first
Democratic president.
The point isn’t that the Democrats invented slavery, which is an ancient institution that far predates America. Rather, Democrats like Senator John C. Calhoun invented a new justification for slavery, slavery as a “positive good.” For the first time in history, Democrats insisted that slavery wasn’t just beneficial for masters; they said it was also good for the slaves. Today progressive pundits attempt to conceal Democratic complicity in slavery by blaming slavery on the “South.” These people have spun a whole history that portrays the slavery battle as one between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. This of course benefits Democrats today,
because today the Democratic Party’s main strength is in the North and the Republican Party’s main strength is in the South.
However,the slavery debate was not mainly a North-South issue. It was actually a contest between the pro slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans. Let’s begin by recalling that northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas protected slavery, while most southerners didn’t own slaves. (Three fourths of those who fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side had no slaves and weren’t fighting to protect slavery.)
Republicans, meanwhile, to one degree or another, all opposed slavery. The party itself was founded to stop slavery. Of course there were a range of views among Republicans, from abolitionists who sought to end slavery immediately to mainstream Republicans like Abraham Lincoln who recognized that this was both constitutionally and politically impossible and focused on arresting slavery’s extension into the new territories. This was the platform on which Lincoln won the 1860 election.
The real clash was between the Democrats, northern and southern, who supported slavery and the Republicans across the country who opposed it. As Lincoln summarized it in his First Inaugural Address, one side believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, and the other believes it is wrong and ought to be restricted. “This,” Lincoln said, “is the only substantial dispute.”
And this, ultimately, was what the Civil War was all about. In the end, of course, Republicans ended slavery and permanently outlawed it through the Thirteenth Amendment. Democrats responded by opposing the amendment and a group of them assassinated the man they held responsible for emancipation, Abraham
Lincoln. Over the Democrats’ opposition, Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment securing for blacks equal rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote.
Confronted with these facts, progressives act like the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.”
In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum crimes of the Democratic Party.”
Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? Democrats in the 1880s invented segregation and Jim Crow laws that lasted through the 1960s. Democrats also came up with the “separate but equal” rationale that justified segregation and pretended that it was for the benefit of African Americans.
The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by a group of former Confederate soldiers; its first grand wizard was a Confederate general who was also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The Klan soon spread beyond the South to the Midwest and the West and became, in the words of historian Eric Foner, “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
The main point of the Klan’s orgy of violence was to prevent blacks from voting—voting, that is, for Republicans. Leading Democrats, including at least one president, two Supreme Court justices, and innumerable senators and congressmen, were Klan members. The last one, Robert Byrd, died in 2010 and was eulogized by President Obama and former President Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton called him her “mentor.”
The sordid history of the Democratic Party in the early twentieth century is also married to the sordid history of the progressive movement during the same period. Progressives like Margaret Sanger—founder of Planned Parenthood and a role model for Hillary Clinton— supported such causes as eugenics and social Darwinism. While abortion was not an issue in Sanger’s day, she backed forced sterilization for “unfit” people, notably minorities. Sanger’s Negro Project was specifically focused on reducing the black population.
Progressives also led the campaign to stop poor immigrants from coming to this country. They championed laws in the 1920s that brought the massive flows of immigration to this country to a virtual halt. The motives of the progressives were openly racist, and in the way the immigration restrictions were framed, progressives succeeded in broadening the Democratic Party’s target list of minority groups. While the Democratic Party previously singled out blacks and native Indians, progressives showed Democrats how to suppress all minorities. Included in the new list were Hispanics from Central and South America as well as Eastern and Southern Europeans. Many of these people were clearly white but progressives did not consider them white enough. Like blacks, they were considered “unfit” on the basis of their complexion.
During the 1920s, progressives developed a fascination with and admiration for Italian and German fascism, and the fascists, for their part, praised American progressives. These were likeminded people who spoke the same language, and progressives and fascists worked together to implement programs to sterilize so-called mental defectives and “unfit” people, resulting subsequently in tens of thousands of forced sterilizations in America and hundreds of thousands in Nazi Germany.
During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent members of his brain trust to Europe to study fascist economic programs, which he considered more advanced than anything his New Deal had implemented to date. FDR was enamored with Mussolini, whom he called the “admirable Italian gentleman.” Some Democrats even had a soft spot for Hitler: young JFK went to Germany before World War II an praised Hitler as a “legend” and blamed
hostility to the Nazis as jealousy resulting from how much the Nazis had accomplished.
Yes, I know. Very little of this is understood by people today because progressives have done such a good job of sweeping it all under the rug. This material is simply left out of the textbooks even though it is right there in the historical record. Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. Such talk, they figure, can only hurt today’s Democrats who, after all, can hardly bear responsibility for what JFK said or what FDR and Woodrow Wilson did.
But don’t we have some responsibility to the truth? Shouldn’t we lay out the facts of history and let people make up their own minds? The progressive answer to this question is no. Progressives detest the facts not because they are untrue but because they don’t fit in with progressive political interests. Facts constitute, as Al Gore
might say, an inconvenient truth.
So progressives have been working hard to come up with lies that can be passed off as facts. Progressives have a whole cultural contingent—Hollywood, the mainline media, the elite universities, even professional comedians—to peddle their propaganda. From the television show Madame Secretary to the front page of the New York Times to nightly quips by Stephen Colbert, the progressive bilge comes at us continually and relentlessly.
In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For progressive Democrats, the Civil Rights Movement is the canonical event of American history. It is even more important than the American Revolution. Progressive reasoning is: We did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America. Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys.
The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental— actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights laws passed. While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did. This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats.
Most people know the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was passed in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year. What few people know is there was a forty-year struggle over that amendment, with Republicans pushing for it and Democrats opposing it, until the Republicans finally had the votes to get it through. Republicans proposed women’s suffrage as early as 1878, but it was voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Republicans re-introduced the issue each year, but for many years the Democrats tied it up in committees. It only got to the floor in 1887 when the Democrats again defeated it.
Frustrated, the suffragettes—who were mostly Republican—took the issue to the states. By 1900 several Republican-dominated states grante women the right to vote. In 1916, Montana Republican Jeannette Rankin became the first woman elected to Congress. Congress, however, only took up the issue again in 1914, when it was again rejected by Senate Democrats. Only when the GOP won landslide majorities in both houses in 1918 did the Nineteenth Amendment finally have the necessary two-thirds majority to pass.
President Woodrow Wilson, who had led his party’s opposition to women’s suffrage, gave in when he saw its inevitability. The Democrats, however, took their opposition to the states, and eight of the nine “no” votes on the Nineteenth Amendment came from Democrat-controlled state legislatures.So the GOP is responsible for women having the right to vote.
More coming up.
Con
#2
I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic.
0.) The Resolution
The only interpretation of this resolution, is that the Democratic Party is currently a party of racism, fascism and intolerance. The resolution that the Democratic Party IS, not WAS, or HISTORICALLY is.
For example: if the Republican Party was currently full of the KKK, fascists and pro slavery racists, it would not be valid to claim that it “IS the party of racial justice” simply because long dead members of that party ended slavery.
To this end - my opponent has to show that the Democratic Party currently holds all the 3 values he claims.
Moreover, in a two party system, pro must also show that the actions of the Democratic Party are worse than their political counter parts.
If the Democratic Party is THE party of racism, it stands to reason that their opposing party would not be as racist.
1.) Who do the actual fascists align with.
P1: If the Democrats were the party of fascists, fascists would align with them.
P2: Fascists don’t align with Democrats.
C: Democrats are not the party of fascists.
P1 is self explanatory.
For P2: The American Nazi party former member, and KKK grand wizard David Duke endorsed Donald Trump.[1]
The alt right, in which the famous “unite the right” rally in Charlottesville famously chanted “Jews will not replace us”, and brandished actual Nazi flags are a far right wing ideological group of White Nationalists, Neo Fascists and the extreme right wing[2]. These celebrated Trumps win by conducting a Nazi Salute[3].
The leader of the Republican Party - Donald Trump accepted multiple donations from Neo Nazis and White Supremacists[4]
Multiple self described Neo Nazis and White supremacists are running as republicans around the country[5]
This clearly demonstrates that those calling themselves fascists today, affiliate with the Republican Party right wing, and run as republicans.
2.) Who do Racists align with?
P1: If the Democrats were the party of racists, racists would align with them.
P2: Racists don’t align with Democrats.
C: Democrats are not the party of fascists.
P1 is again self explanatory.
The Nazis and white nationalists described in (1) also show that racists affiliate with the Republican Party; so these all apply to this example too. They run as republicans, donate to republicans, and affiliate with republicans.
Multiple explicit white nationalists and racists have run for office as republicans; Steve King in the house today is an avowed white supremacist.[6]
Voting demographics show that Racist attitudes are focused in the south and rural North and correspond with mostly republican districts and states.[7][8]
The southern states most affiliated with recent overt racism; Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc are all staunch Republican States.
This clearly shows that Racists clearly affiliate with the Republicans.
3.) Which party is more tolerant?
P1: Those of a given races and faiths tend not to want to work with those intolerant of them.
P2: the Democratic Party is hugely diverse.
C: the Democratic Party is tolerant of different races and faiths
Here is an image of Democratic Party interns in Congress.[9]
Here is a similar image of the Republican Party White House interns.[10]
The Newly elected republicans in the house included 31 white men and 1 white woman.
The newly elected Democrats were famously diverse, including multiple minority congressmen and women and out of 40 included only 14 white men.[11]
The Democratic Party is clearly more diverse and this is indicative that they are more welcoming of different genders, faiths and races. Conversely the Republican Party attract predominantly white, predominantly male individuals.
While this doesn’t show that republicans are intolerant (it’s not intended to); it strongly shows that democrats are likely not intolerant.
4.) Rebuttal : “But slavery and Jim Crow”
Most of the members of the Democratic Party from the 1800s and early 1900s are no longer active in the Democratic Party. This is mainly due to them being dead.
Racist attitudes and pro slavery sentiment were primarily focused in the south. These are primarily the pro slavery states. As shown in (2), racism is still prevalent in these states, and engaged in state led racism as recently as 60 years ago.
When the Democrats were pushing and passed the civil rights acts and voting rights act: these states immediately swung to republicans, this can be seen in the 1964 presidential election landslide. LBJ won almost all the votes - the south went Republican.[12]
Since the - these southern states, where racism was and is still prevalent have been more and more Republican.
The republicans main strategy, “the southern strategy” was to make large electoral inroads by appealing to racists and disaffected whites who didn’t want to vote democrat any more.[13]
This led to a realignment of the politic parties - with the modern Republican Party being much more aligned with the racial conservatism of the pre 1960 Democratic Party.
In this case, the racist democrats, would today be considered Republicans. Indeed, after the civil rights act Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms and Miles Godwin defected to the Republican Party.[14]
Worse, pro seeks to downplay the involvement in JFK, LBJ and the Democratic Party pushing civil rights across the board.
Pros weighting here appears largely absurd - it matters more than the 1800s Democrats supported slavery; but somehow doesn’t matter at all that Democrats systematically attempted to eradicate the consequences of the failure of reconstruction; for better or worse.
If what the Democratic Party does is important - it should all factor in, rather than pro simply cherry picking the aspects that agree with him.
5.) Rebuttal: Democrats supported fascism.
Again, the Democratic Party has a different platform, and is comprised of different people than it was in 1920. Considering that currently fascists affiliate with the republicans (see 2). This is clearly not true now even if was true then.
Generally speaking though, Pro mischaracterizes many of his claims:
JFK was not professing, nor professed any admiration for Fascism or Hitler - he specially was referring to the significance of the mystery surrounding Hitler. It was also not before WW2 he wrote this, but in 1945 [15]
Secondly, desire for Strong Military, military service to the state, patriotic and Nationalistic symbolism are Fascist policies.[16]
That republicans support similar policies do not mean that they are inherently fascist.
Pro omits a major historical detail: he claims that the Democrats were fascist because they looked at some fascist policy but omits that the Democratic led Government, presses a total war for nearly 5 years, and committed hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars to eradicating fascism in Europe.[17]
So on the one hand, Democrats viewed some fascist economic policy favourably in the 1920s and 30s - on the other they completely destroyed and eradicated two fascist governments.
6.) Rebuttal: Woman’s Suffrage
At the time of woman’s suffrage, the Democratic Party was more socially conservative. The Republican Party was more progressive.
Needless to say these rolls have been reversed in the modern parties.[18]
7.) Rebuttal: Andrew Jackson was terrible - and a Democrat.
Andrew Jackson was indeed a terrible president, and would likely not be a democrat today or be welcome in the modern Democratic Party.
Pro rightly points out that Jackson had racist policies.
What pro does not point out, is that the current populist leader of the Republican Party - Donald Trump cites Andrew Jackson as his one of his hero’s.[19]
8.) Rebuttal: Democrats stopped poor immigrants coming to the country.
While this may have been true of Democrats in the past - it is not now. Worse, this is currently true of the Republican Party now. With Donald Trump being famously anti immigration and anti-asylum.[20]
9.) Rebuttal: Democrats preferred white immigrants
As before, while this may have been true of Democrats in the past, it is not now. Worse, this is currently true of the Republican Party now, with Donald Trump opining that he wants more white Scandinavian immigrants rather than those from “shit hole” African countries.[21]
10.) Rebuttal: Margeret Sanger supported Eugenics
This is probably true - as it was for many people of the time. It doesn’t seem to be true now, and is so irrelevant.
Interestingly, the only individuals on this forum promoting a form of Eugenics, by preventing the poor from breeding, is a conservative.
“Under this plan, the poor stop having kids they don't need and they stay in touch with their existing kids.”[22]
Conclusion:
It can be shown that today, the Democratic Party is more inclusive and tolerant, that actual racists and fascists are affiliated with the Republican Party.
This clearly negates the resolution.
In addition, pros argument is cherry picking, ignoring key aspects of history, and are based on events so long ago that they cannot be considered representative of the modern Democratic Party.
Of the platforms that Pro criticizes, of which there were many, almost all our now the bread and butter of the Republican Party, in this case pro even confirms accidentally that the Democratic Party is no longer affiliated with these ideals.
This also clearly negates the resolution.
[6]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18176928/steve-king-white-supremacist-offensive
[10] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/29/17793104/white-house-intern-picture-summer-2018
Round 2
Pro
#3
0. SOMETHING'S WRONG........
My opponent has mistaken the resolution of the debate. Whether accidentally or deliberately,I do not know,but he has.
Note that the title of the debate reads,"The Democratic party is THE party of fascism,intolerance and racism." How can a party be THE party of fascism and racism? It can be proved so based on past actions and historical data. Even in the description,I wrote "As evidenced by historical facts". The meaning of this resolution was to prove that the Democrats were the party which had supported fascism and racism and hence were consequently the party of racism and fascism. It can only be proved by showing evidence of their past behaviors.
While I appreciate the points my opponent has raised and I will certainly address them as well,I am afraid that the argument put forth by Con is absurd.
It's like I said in my opening round,the lawyer the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.”
In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum crimes of the Democratic Party.”
Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. Such talk, they figure, can only hurt today’s Democrats who, after all, can hardly bear responsibility for what JFK said or what FDR and Woodrow Wilson did.
But don’t we have some responsibility to the truth? Shouldn’t we lay out the facts of history and let people make up their own minds? The progressive answer to this question is no. Progressives detest the facts not because they are untrue but because they don’t fit in with progressive political interests. Facts constitute, as Al Gore
might say, an inconvenient truth.
To give you another example,it's also akin to the lawyer who says, “Yes, my client shot the clerk and killed all those people, but since then he has completely reformed and now lives a blameless life. Meanwhile, his accusers have all become criminals.” Actually, even if that were true, the man should still be held to account for what he did. He should be expected to make a confession of his crimes and make some reparation to his victims and to society. Progressives, of course, have no intention of doing any of this. Neither do Democrats.
Before continuing my next arguments,I will first rebut my opponent's arguments:
1. ALIGNING IS PROOF.
P2. That point is inherently wrong.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-invites-antifa-to-the-party/
The biggest example is the Antifa. The Antifa does exactly what the blackshirts of Italy and the brownshirts of Germany used to do. They would go to a lecture hall,stand up and try to shout down the speaker. Or,they would attack the speaker or disrupt the event by starting fires and committing violence. And if they could get the lecture cancelled,they would count it as a victory. So,today the Antifa does exactly what the fascists of Germany used to do.
Con said fascists don't align with Democrats,and yet the No.2 man of the Democratic party,Keith Ellison,invited them to join the party. This goes against the argument that fascists don't align with the Democratic party.
Moreover,the important point is not that fascists are aligning with Democrats,but that the Democratic party itself has begun to develop fascist values.
https://outline.com/z2J7HD
Go to the above link and you'll understand how.
I would like to point out that my opponent has posted sources from Wikipedia which is known to be notoriously inaccurate and is more of a reference than a source. Also,my opponent accuses me of ignoring certain facts and posting only those which were very convenient to me. I would like to say that that is a blatant lie and in fact,it is my opponent which has done so.
For example:
Con alleges that David Duke endorsed Donald Trump. He conveniently fails to mention that Donald Trump and Mike Pence denounced David Duke and his support.
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/david-duke-trump-charlottesville_n_5991d6bae4b08a2472764798
And since Con posts articles from Wikipedia,let me also mention what else he conveniently failed to post.
Duke joined the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1967. Duke first ran for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. During his campaign, he was allowed to speak on the college campuses of Vanderbilt University, Indiana University, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and Tulane University. He received 11,079 votes, one-third of those cast.
In October 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th District Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26%).
In the late 1970s, Duke was accused by several Klan officials of stealing the organization's money. "Duke is nothing but a con artist", Jack Gregory, Duke's Florida state leader, told the Clearwater Sun after Duke allegedly refused to turn over proceeds from a series of 1979 Klan rallies to the Knights. Another Klan official under Duke, Jerry Dutton, told reporters that Duke had used Klan funds to purchase and refurbish his home in Metairie. Duke later justified the repairs by saying most of his home was used by the Klan.
In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind.
Duke allegedly conducted a direct-mail appeal in 1987, using the identity and mailing-list of the Georgia Forsyth County Defense Leaguewithout permission. League officials described it as a fundraising scam.
I know this is shocking because this shows that while David Duke was a white supremacist he was a part of the Democrats,not the Republicans. He left the KKK before joining the Republicans. He also left the KKK 40 years before as of now.
Con also conveniently(deliberately?) ignored the fact that while Donald Trump denounced David Duke's support,Hillary Clinton called Robert Byrd who was also a KKK member as her "mentor" and President Obama actually eulogized him. This actually proves that the Democratic party is the party of fascism.
But most importantly,here is the most shocking fact of all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
A total off 20 members have been proven to be in the KKK who later joined US politics. Out of these 17 members were Democrats while only 3 were Republicans.
And before anybody accuses me of invalid sources,this is the same source which Con used: Wikipedia,so spare me.
Con accuses Republicans of taking money from white supremacists which amounted to a total of 300$ out of 16 million$ of the total campaign donations;not to mention the fact that the RNC condemned those donations as is clear in the same source which Con posted.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/02/20/why_is_the_fec_ignoring_hillary_clintons_84_million_campaign_finance_scandal_111066.html
However,Con doesn't seem as concerned about the 84 million$ of illegal donations that the Democratic party received,even allegedly diverting funds from the Clinton Foundation. That seems ironic,though not surprising.
2. RACISM.
Before I get on with my argument,let's clear up the ridiculous argument that "only whites are racist".
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.
Nowhere does it mention anything about whites or blacks. With that in mind:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/17/white-male-democrats-2020-225101
I quote from the above article,"Of the nine candidates officially running in the Democratic presidential primary, only one is a heterosexual white man."
And Joe Biden who's running from the Democratic ticket has a history of saying racist things.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/joe-biden-once-said-democrats-needed-a-liberal-george-wallace
Also,I would like to say regarding your 8th source,I went to the site and I saw an electoral map. There was nothing about racism in the South. It showed that most states in the South voted for the Republicans. So,voting for Republicans is racist now? Boy,and they say that Republicans are intolerant.......
Also,"The southern states most affiliated with recent overt racism; Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc are all staunch Republican States. This clearly shows that Racists clearly affiliate with the Republicans."
By the same logic,most Democrats are violent thugs because out of the 20 dangerous major cities in America,19 are governed by Democrats.
https://www.apnews.com/cd60b6d9b1e34e20b9b0c19205c2cae6
Before getting on with the next point,let's get real. The face of bigotry has changed in America. Today,the KKK would be lucky to even get 50 members in its protests.
Hell,just last week in Dayton,Ohio,only 9 PEOPLE SHOWED UP FOR A KKK PROTEST. The protesters outnumbered them 10 to 1. This is very different from The Klan of a century ago,when they used to gather tens of thousands of people and march along the streets of New York shouting racist slogans and burning crosses.
http://time.com/5596103/kkk-rally-dayton-ohio/
The real fascists and racists today are the Antifa who are being backed by the Democrats(as shown above)
3. TOLERANCE
I'm sorry,but my head started aching after having to look for whites,blacks and latinos in that 2 pictures. Why don't we talk based on facts and not pictures?
My opponent's whole argument is based on the statement that since white supremacists donate money to Trump,hence it's Trump who's racist. One has only to exercise his brain a little to find out how fundamentally flawed that logic is.
The strongest basis for the charge is that the Left has uncovered some white supremacists and anti-Semites who say they back Trump. One of them, Richard Spencer, held a notorious rally during which he and his few dozen supporters cried out, “Hail Trump.” Spencer seems here to be doing his best Hitler imitation. Yet if these racists and anti-Semites endorse Trump, Trump himself doesn’t endorse them. The best the Left can show is that Trump has retweeted some statements by white nationalists even though the statements themselves are benign. I retweet people all the time without knowing much about them. The conventions of social media do not require that we check out the backgrounds of the people that we retweet.
Over the course of American history many racists voted for Lincoln—who actively courted the anti-immigrant, Know-Nothing vote—and Wilson and FDR, who actively sought the votes of avowed racists. It doesn’t follow that Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were racists. My point here is simply that the racist vote by itself doesn’t make its beneficiary a racist.
Let’s consider Trump’s executive order banning travel to America from several Muslim-majority countries. These countries happen to be breeding grounds for terrorists. They are also countries where the vetting of people, some of whom have been displaced from their homes and communities, is especially difficult. John Locke says that whatever other tasks a government undertakes— whether humanitarian or otherwise—its primary duty is to protect its own citizens from foreign and domestic thugs. That isn’t fascism; it’s classical liberalism.
Trump isn’t against “immigrants” for the simple reason that illegal aliens are not immigrants. Leftists in Congress and the media routinely conflate legal and illegal immigrants as in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s comical rant, “We are all immigrants,” and in this New York Times front-page headline: “More Immigrants Face Deportation Under New Rules.”
But that is a lie. Trump has no intention to send us packing to our countries of origin. Trump’s distinction is between legal immigrants and lawbreakers who seek to circumvent the immigration process.
This is not a racial distinction. Trump has never said that America is a white man’s country or that brown or black people should not emigrate here. Most immigrants today come from Asia, Africa, and South America, and Trump seems fine with that. Contrast Trump’s position with that of Hitler. The Jews of Germany were legal immigrants or descended from legal immigrants. They were German citizens. Yet Hitler did not consider them to be true Germans. The Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship. So for Hitler the line was not between legal and illegal immigrants. It was not even between immigrants and native-born Germans. Rather, it was a racial line between Nordics or Aryan Germanic people on the one hand, and Jews and other non- Aryan “inferiors” on the other.
My opponent has mistaken the resolution of the debate. Whether accidentally or deliberately,I do not know,but he has.
Note that the title of the debate reads,"The Democratic party is THE party of fascism,intolerance and racism." How can a party be THE party of fascism and racism? It can be proved so based on past actions and historical data. Even in the description,I wrote "As evidenced by historical facts". The meaning of this resolution was to prove that the Democrats were the party which had supported fascism and racism and hence were consequently the party of racism and fascism. It can only be proved by showing evidence of their past behaviors.
While I appreciate the points my opponent has raised and I will certainly address them as well,I am afraid that the argument put forth by Con is absurd.
It's like I said in my opening round,the lawyer the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.”
In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum crimes of the Democratic Party.”
Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. Such talk, they figure, can only hurt today’s Democrats who, after all, can hardly bear responsibility for what JFK said or what FDR and Woodrow Wilson did.
But don’t we have some responsibility to the truth? Shouldn’t we lay out the facts of history and let people make up their own minds? The progressive answer to this question is no. Progressives detest the facts not because they are untrue but because they don’t fit in with progressive political interests. Facts constitute, as Al Gore
might say, an inconvenient truth.
To give you another example,it's also akin to the lawyer who says, “Yes, my client shot the clerk and killed all those people, but since then he has completely reformed and now lives a blameless life. Meanwhile, his accusers have all become criminals.” Actually, even if that were true, the man should still be held to account for what he did. He should be expected to make a confession of his crimes and make some reparation to his victims and to society. Progressives, of course, have no intention of doing any of this. Neither do Democrats.
Before continuing my next arguments,I will first rebut my opponent's arguments:
1. ALIGNING IS PROOF.
P2. That point is inherently wrong.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/keith-ellison-invites-antifa-to-the-party/
The biggest example is the Antifa. The Antifa does exactly what the blackshirts of Italy and the brownshirts of Germany used to do. They would go to a lecture hall,stand up and try to shout down the speaker. Or,they would attack the speaker or disrupt the event by starting fires and committing violence. And if they could get the lecture cancelled,they would count it as a victory. So,today the Antifa does exactly what the fascists of Germany used to do.
Con said fascists don't align with Democrats,and yet the No.2 man of the Democratic party,Keith Ellison,invited them to join the party. This goes against the argument that fascists don't align with the Democratic party.
Moreover,the important point is not that fascists are aligning with Democrats,but that the Democratic party itself has begun to develop fascist values.
https://outline.com/z2J7HD
Go to the above link and you'll understand how.
I would like to point out that my opponent has posted sources from Wikipedia which is known to be notoriously inaccurate and is more of a reference than a source. Also,my opponent accuses me of ignoring certain facts and posting only those which were very convenient to me. I would like to say that that is a blatant lie and in fact,it is my opponent which has done so.
For example:
Con alleges that David Duke endorsed Donald Trump. He conveniently fails to mention that Donald Trump and Mike Pence denounced David Duke and his support.
https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/david-duke-trump-charlottesville_n_5991d6bae4b08a2472764798
And since Con posts articles from Wikipedia,let me also mention what else he conveniently failed to post.
Duke joined the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in 1967. Duke first ran for the Louisiana Senate as a Democrat from a Baton Rouge district in 1975. During his campaign, he was allowed to speak on the college campuses of Vanderbilt University, Indiana University, the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and Tulane University. He received 11,079 votes, one-third of those cast.
In October 1979, he ran as a Democrat for the 10th District Senate seat and finished second in a three-candidate race with 9,897 votes (26%).
In the late 1970s, Duke was accused by several Klan officials of stealing the organization's money. "Duke is nothing but a con artist", Jack Gregory, Duke's Florida state leader, told the Clearwater Sun after Duke allegedly refused to turn over proceeds from a series of 1979 Klan rallies to the Knights. Another Klan official under Duke, Jerry Dutton, told reporters that Duke had used Klan funds to purchase and refurbish his home in Metairie. Duke later justified the repairs by saying most of his home was used by the Klan.
In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind.
Duke allegedly conducted a direct-mail appeal in 1987, using the identity and mailing-list of the Georgia Forsyth County Defense Leaguewithout permission. League officials described it as a fundraising scam.
I know this is shocking because this shows that while David Duke was a white supremacist he was a part of the Democrats,not the Republicans. He left the KKK before joining the Republicans. He also left the KKK 40 years before as of now.
Con also conveniently(deliberately?) ignored the fact that while Donald Trump denounced David Duke's support,Hillary Clinton called Robert Byrd who was also a KKK member as her "mentor" and President Obama actually eulogized him. This actually proves that the Democratic party is the party of fascism.
But most importantly,here is the most shocking fact of all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
A total off 20 members have been proven to be in the KKK who later joined US politics. Out of these 17 members were Democrats while only 3 were Republicans.
And before anybody accuses me of invalid sources,this is the same source which Con used: Wikipedia,so spare me.
Con accuses Republicans of taking money from white supremacists which amounted to a total of 300$ out of 16 million$ of the total campaign donations;not to mention the fact that the RNC condemned those donations as is clear in the same source which Con posted.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2019/02/20/why_is_the_fec_ignoring_hillary_clintons_84_million_campaign_finance_scandal_111066.html
However,Con doesn't seem as concerned about the 84 million$ of illegal donations that the Democratic party received,even allegedly diverting funds from the Clinton Foundation. That seems ironic,though not surprising.
2. RACISM.
Before I get on with my argument,let's clear up the ridiculous argument that "only whites are racist".
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.
Nowhere does it mention anything about whites or blacks. With that in mind:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/17/white-male-democrats-2020-225101
I quote from the above article,"Of the nine candidates officially running in the Democratic presidential primary, only one is a heterosexual white man."
And Joe Biden who's running from the Democratic ticket has a history of saying racist things.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/joe-biden-once-said-democrats-needed-a-liberal-george-wallace
So,this completely blows the argument that Democrats are not
racist.
As I posted above,out of 20 KKK members,17 of them had been
Democrats,with one of them being acknowledged as "mentor" by Hillary
Clinton. So,it fails to show how Democrats are not racist.
Also,I would like to say regarding your 8th source,I went to the site and I saw an electoral map. There was nothing about racism in the South. It showed that most states in the South voted for the Republicans. So,voting for Republicans is racist now? Boy,and they say that Republicans are intolerant.......
Also,"The southern states most affiliated with recent overt racism; Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc are all staunch Republican States. This clearly shows that Racists clearly affiliate with the Republicans."
By the same logic,most Democrats are violent thugs because out of the 20 dangerous major cities in America,19 are governed by Democrats.
https://www.apnews.com/cd60b6d9b1e34e20b9b0c19205c2cae6
Before getting on with the next point,let's get real. The face of bigotry has changed in America. Today,the KKK would be lucky to even get 50 members in its protests.
Hell,just last week in Dayton,Ohio,only 9 PEOPLE SHOWED UP FOR A KKK PROTEST. The protesters outnumbered them 10 to 1. This is very different from The Klan of a century ago,when they used to gather tens of thousands of people and march along the streets of New York shouting racist slogans and burning crosses.
http://time.com/5596103/kkk-rally-dayton-ohio/
The real fascists and racists today are the Antifa who are being backed by the Democrats(as shown above)
3. TOLERANCE
I'm sorry,but my head started aching after having to look for whites,blacks and latinos in that 2 pictures. Why don't we talk based on facts and not pictures?
My opponent's whole argument is based on the statement that since white supremacists donate money to Trump,hence it's Trump who's racist. One has only to exercise his brain a little to find out how fundamentally flawed that logic is.
The strongest basis for the charge is that the Left has uncovered some white supremacists and anti-Semites who say they back Trump. One of them, Richard Spencer, held a notorious rally during which he and his few dozen supporters cried out, “Hail Trump.” Spencer seems here to be doing his best Hitler imitation. Yet if these racists and anti-Semites endorse Trump, Trump himself doesn’t endorse them. The best the Left can show is that Trump has retweeted some statements by white nationalists even though the statements themselves are benign. I retweet people all the time without knowing much about them. The conventions of social media do not require that we check out the backgrounds of the people that we retweet.
Over the course of American history many racists voted for Lincoln—who actively courted the anti-immigrant, Know-Nothing vote—and Wilson and FDR, who actively sought the votes of avowed racists. It doesn’t follow that Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were racists. My point here is simply that the racist vote by itself doesn’t make its beneficiary a racist.
Let’s consider Trump’s executive order banning travel to America from several Muslim-majority countries. These countries happen to be breeding grounds for terrorists. They are also countries where the vetting of people, some of whom have been displaced from their homes and communities, is especially difficult. John Locke says that whatever other tasks a government undertakes— whether humanitarian or otherwise—its primary duty is to protect its own citizens from foreign and domestic thugs. That isn’t fascism; it’s classical liberalism.
Trump isn’t against “immigrants” for the simple reason that illegal aliens are not immigrants. Leftists in Congress and the media routinely conflate legal and illegal immigrants as in New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s comical rant, “We are all immigrants,” and in this New York Times front-page headline: “More Immigrants Face Deportation Under New Rules.”
But that is a lie. Trump has no intention to send us packing to our countries of origin. Trump’s distinction is between legal immigrants and lawbreakers who seek to circumvent the immigration process.
This is not a racial distinction. Trump has never said that America is a white man’s country or that brown or black people should not emigrate here. Most immigrants today come from Asia, Africa, and South America, and Trump seems fine with that. Contrast Trump’s position with that of Hitler. The Jews of Germany were legal immigrants or descended from legal immigrants. They were German citizens. Yet Hitler did not consider them to be true Germans. The Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship. So for Hitler the line was not between legal and illegal immigrants. It was not even between immigrants and native-born Germans. Rather, it was a racial line between Nordics or Aryan Germanic people on the one hand, and Jews and other non- Aryan “inferiors” on the other.
4.CIVIL RIGHTS AND JIM CROW.
Here,Con's argument seems to be since the instigators of Jim Crow are dead,it implies that the Democratic Party is without blame.Once again,it's like the lawyer who says,"Yes, my client shot the clerk and killed all those people, but since
then he has completely reformed and now lives a blameless life. Meanwhile, his
accusers have all become criminals.” Actually, even if that were true, the man
should still be held to account for what he did. He should be expected to make
a confession of his crimes and make some reparation to his victims and to
society. Progressives, of course, have no intention of doing any of this.
Neither do Democrats.
I want to beg your pardon and digress for a little while,so indulge me for a moment. I have had a previous debate about BLM where Con voted against me and one of his reasons were that slavery and Jim Crow were instituted by AMERICA and that this proves that AMERICA indulged in racism. However,Con seems to cavalierly brush aside the fact that it was the DEMOCRATIC PARTY which protected and enforced racism. Selective moral outrage is something to be condemned.
Whenever progressives talk about reparations they want “America” to pay. But “America” didn’t commit these crimes; they did. They’re the ones who should be held
accountable.
The biggest part of Con's argument seems to be the "Southern strategy" and "The Big Switch" of the Democrats switching to Republicans and the voters allegedly voting for Republicans instead of the Democrats. However,this is a part of the most ingenious progressive lie,so let's expose it as such:
- The ACTUAL “Big Switch” Part 1:
- Even though FDR was clearly racist, blacks saw that New Deal programs at least offered employment to tens of thousands of blacks
- Black votes during the New Deal era moved steadily toward the Democratic Party, in a sense selling their votes for a mess of pottage.
- From 1865 to 1933 approximately 90 percent of blacks voted Republican
- By 1936, 75 percent of blacks became Democrats
- This tend has only continued since then, so that today around 90 percent of blacks vote Democratic and only 10 percent vote Republican
- From 1865 to 1933 approximately 90 percent of blacks voted Republican
- The black vote switched from Republican to Democrat mostly during a period of four years during the 1930s.
- Democrats could scarcely believe their good fortune. They found that they could continue to exclude, exploit, and subjugate blacks, and still get the black vote. Democratic strategists at the time expressed their amazement and delight that blacks votes came so cheap. In subsequent decades, progressive Democrats recognized that they could secure a virtually permanent hold on the black vote by creating plantation-style dependency on the state.
- Even though FDR was clearly racist, blacks saw that New Deal programs at least offered employment to tens of thousands of blacks
- The ACTUAL “Big Switch,” Part 2:
- The south became more Republican over a period of decades during the 1950s and 1960s as it gradually became less racist
- As the South became more prosperous economically during the 190s and 1960s, the racist appeal lost its currency and white southern Democrats realized that they had more in common with the Republican Party. The identified with the GOP idea of controlling your own destiny and improving your own life.
- In a remarkable book, The End of Southern Exceptionalism, Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston make the case that white southerners switched to the Republican Party not because of racism but because they identified the GOP with economic opportunity and upward mobility. As the agrarian South became more industrial and then post-industrial, white southerners switched parties not because of race but because of economic prospects. Interestingly, whites moved to the Republican Party for the same reason blacks moved to the Democratic Party: both groups saw the journey as congruent with their economic self-interest.
- Shafer and Johnston show how Democrats tried, and failed, to keep southern whites in the fold by appealing to racism. Southern whites, however, migrated to the GOP as the party that better represented their interests and aspirations. Shafer and Johnston supply reams of data to substantiate their claim that the poorest, most racist whites remained Democratic, while more prosperous whites who were not racist were more likely to become Republicans. To the horror of the Democratic Party, the South moved in the Republican direction as white southerners embraced the GOP as the non-racist party of economic opportunity and patriotism. 21
- As the South became more prosperous economically during the 190s and 1960s, the racist appeal lost its currency and white southern Democrats realized that they had more in common with the Republican Party. The identified with the GOP idea of controlling your own destiny and improving your own life.
- LBJ Spoke of civil rights legislation as a tactical measure to keep blacks on the plantation
- Johnson was himself a member of the racist group of southern Democrats that FDR worked with and cut deals with.
- Johnson vociferously opposed civil rights early in his career.
- I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
- As quoted in “What a Real President Was Like: To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society Meant Hope and Dignity”, by Bill Moyers, The Washington Post (13 November 1988).
- As quoted in “What a Real President Was Like: To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society Meant Hope and Dignity”, by Bill Moyers, The Washington Post (13 November 1988).
- As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name! So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it! Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture!
- Said to his chauffeur, Robert Parker, when Parker said he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “nigger” or “chief.” As quoted in Parker, Robert; Rashke, Richard L. (1989). Capitol Hill in Black and White. United States: Penguin Group. p. v. ISBN 0515101893. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
- Said to his chauffeur, Robert Parker, when Parker said he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “nigger” or “chief.” As quoted in Parker, Robert; Rashke, Richard L. (1989). Capitol Hill in Black and White. United States: Penguin Group. p. v. ISBN 0515101893. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
- I’m going to have to bring up the nigger bill again.
- Said to a southern U.S. Senator upon the occasion of the Republicans re-introducing the Civil Right Act of 1957, according to LBJ’s Special Counsel Harry McPherson. As quoted in McPherson, Harry. Interview with Michael L. Gillette. “Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI, 5/16/85, by Michael L. Gillette, LBJLibrary.” 16 May 1985.
- Said to a southern U.S. Senator upon the occasion of the Republicans re-introducing the Civil Right Act of 1957, according to LBJ’s Special Counsel Harry McPherson. As quoted in McPherson, Harry. Interview with Michael L. Gillette. “Transcript, Harry McPherson Oral History Interview VI, 5/16/85, by Michael L. Gillette, LBJLibrary.” 16 May 1985.
- Let’s face it. Our ass is in a crack. We’re gonna have to let this nigger bill pass.
- Said to Senator John Stennis (D-MS) during debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Caro, Robert A. (2002). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
- Said to Senator John Stennis (D-MS) during debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Caro, Robert A. (2002). The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate, Volume 3. New York: Knopf. p. 954. ISBN 0394528360. Retrieved on 6 January 2015.
- Sam, why don’t you all let this nigger bill pass?
- Said to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-TX) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
- Said to Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn (D-TX) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
- These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
- Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream (1977), by Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York: New American Library, p. 155. (TIME:48:35-49:12 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote)
- Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As quoted in Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream (1977), by Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York: New American Library, p. 155. (TIME:48:35-49:12 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote)
- Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.
- Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
- Said to an aide in 1965 regarding the appointment of Thurgood Marshall as associate justice of the Supreme Court. As quoted in Dallek, Robert (1991). Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1908-1960. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 519. ISBN 0195054350. Retrieved on 5 July 2014.
- I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.
- Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33. (TIME: 49:18-49:35 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote
- Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan. As quoted in Inside the White House (1996), by Ronald Kessler, New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 33. (TIME: 49:18-49:35 SOURCES: Lyndon B. Johnson, Wikiquote
- Other Tactical Aspects of Democratic support for Civil Rights Legislation
- If blacks became independent they would have no more reason to vote Democratic
- Black suffering gave Democratic progressivism a continuing claim to “social justice.”
- As long as blacks were beholden to Democrats anyone who dissented from the progressive program could then be accused of being anti-black.
- Republicans who opposed progressivism could be charged with being racist.
- Black conservatives and the party of black emancipation and of civil rights could now be tarred with the charge if bigotry and being against civil rights.
- If blacks became independent they would have no more reason to vote Democratic
- Johnson was himself a member of the racist group of southern Democrats that FDR worked with and cut deals with.
Nixon’s so-called “Southern Strategy” never happened.
- Progressives who cannot refute this history—facts are stubborn things—nevertheless create the fantasy of a Nixon “Southern strategy” that supposedly explains how Republicans cynically appealed to racism in order to convert southern Democrats into Republicans. In reality Nixon had no such strategy—as we have seen, it was Lyndon Johnson who had a southern strategy to keep blacks from defecting to the Republican Party. Johnson, not Nixon, was the true racist, a fact that progressive historiography has gone to great lengths to disguise.
- Nixon’s political strategy in the 1968 campaign is laid out in Kevin Phillips’s classic work The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips writes that the Nixon campaign knew it could never win the presidency through any kind of racist appeal. Such an appeal, even if it won some converts in some parts of the Lower South, would completely ruin Nixon’s prospects in the rest of the country. Nixon’s best bet was to appeal to the rising middle classes of the Upper South on the basis of prosperity and economic opportunity. 22 This is exactly what Nixon did.
- There are no statements by Nixon that even remotely suggest he appealed to racism in the 1968 or 1972 campaigns. Nixon never displayed the hateful, condescending view of blacks that Johnson did. The racist vote in 1968 didn’t go to Nixon; it went to George Wallace. A longtime Democratic segregationist, Wallace campaigned that year on an independent ticket. Nixon won the election but Wallace carried the Deep South states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.
- Nixon supported expanded civil rights for blacks throughout his career while Johnson was—for the cynical reasons given above—a late convert to the cause. Nixon went far beyond Johnson in this area; in fact, Nixon implemented America’s first affirmative action program which involved the government forcing racist unions in Philadelphia to hire blacks.
- To sum up, starting in the 1930s and continuing to the present, progressive Democrats developed a new solution to the problem of what they saw as useless people. In the antebellum era, useless people from the Democratic point of view were mainly employed as slaves. In the postbellum period, southern Democrats repressed, segregated, and subjugated useless people, seeking to prevent them from challenging white supremacy or voting Republican. Meanwhile, northern progressives like Margaret Sanger sought to prevent useless people from being born. Today’s progressives, building on the legacy of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, have figured out what to do with useless people: turn them into Democratic voters.
- "Additionally, black voters nationwide realigned their party affiliation because of the growing perception that the interests of the black community were intertwined with local Democratic organizations….While New Deal programs failed to extend as much economic relief to Black Americans as to whites, the tangible assistance they provided conferred a sense that the system was at least addressing a few issues that were important to African Americans." (SOURCES: Party Realignment and the New Deal, History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives)
- In 1936, black party affiliation was 44% Democratic, 37% Republican. But blacks voted 71% Democratic and 28% Republican(SOURCES: Black Party Affiliation, BlackDemographics.com)
The Second Civil Rights Revolution
- Brown v Board of Education
- Ending school segregation
- Ending school segregation
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Guaranteed blacks, women and other minorities the right not to be discriminated against in jobs and government contracts
- passed the House with
- 63 percent of Democrats and
- 80 percent of Republicans voting “yes.”
- 63 percent of Democrats and
- Passed the Senate with
- 69 percent of Democrats and
- 94 percent of Republicans voted “yes.”
- 69 percent of Democrats and
- Guaranteed blacks, women and other minorities the right not to be discriminated against in jobs and government contracts
- Fair Housing Bill of 1968
- Extended the antidiscrimination provisions of the CRA of 1964 to housing.
- Extended the antidiscrimination provisions of the CRA of 1964 to housing.
- The Voting Rights Act of 1965
- guaranteed to blacks and other minorities full enfranchisement
- passed the House 333-85,
- No votes
- 61 Democrats
- 24 Republicans
- 61 Democrats
- It passed the Senate with
- 73 percent of Democrats and
- 94 percent of Republicans.
- 73 percent of Democrats and
- guaranteed to blacks and other minorities full enfranchisement
- Had Republicans voted in the same proportion as Democrats the laws would not have passed.
The main opposition to the second Civil Rights Movement came from Democrats (Dixiecrats).
- Organized protests against desegregation rulings by the Supreme Court
- Democrat governors refused to enforce those rulings
- Senate Democrats filibusterd against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Leading members of the Dixiecrats:
- James Eastland, Democrat, Mississippi
- John Stennis, Democrat, Mississippi
- Russel Long, Democrat, Louisiana
- Strom Thurmond, Democrat, South Carolina
- The only one to switch to Republican Party
- The only one to switch to Republican Party
- Herman Talmadge, Democrat, Georgia
- J. William Fulbright, Democrat, Arkansas
- Lestor Maddox, Democrat, Georgia,
- Al Gore Sr., Democrat, Tennessee
- Robert Byrd, Democrat, West Virginia
- James Eastland, Democrat, Mississippi
Food for thought,aye?
5.FDR,JFK,WILSON.
Fascism actually means putting the resources of the individual and of industry at the service of the state. This means that the state defines what individual aspirations are about, and the state controls the resources of private industry. Fascism also confers entitlements on citizens and uses these to justify state power and state control. Finally, fascism draws on an atmosphere of perpetual fear—sometimes accompanied by perpetual conflict—to keep citizens apprehensive and make them look to the state for protection and care.
In 1937 as a young man, JFK toured Germany in the early years of Adolf Hitler. What he saw greatly impressed him. “Fascism?” JFK wrote in his diary. “The right thing for Nazi Germany.” JFK visited Hitler’s Bavarian holiday home as well as a teahouse that Hitler had constructed on a mountaintop. “Who has visited these two places,” JFK observed, “can easily imagine how Hitler in a few years will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him as one of the most important personalities
that ever lived.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/a-berliner-in-1963-but-did-former-us-president-john-f-kennedy-once-admire-adolf-hitler-8629991.html
Michael Mullins, “JFK in Diary Admired Nazi Germany and Hitler, Book Claims,” Newsmax, May 24, 2013; Allan Hall, “How JFK Secretly Admired Hitler,”Daily Mail, May 23, 2013.
It's a lie that JFK wrote those in 1945 and not before WW2,as the above link shows.
Also,USA entered the war after Pearl Harbor
Con
#4
I apologize to voters for the length of this post. Pro has mainly engaged in a Gish Gallop of innumerable points, and in order to be complete, it requires ink.
Plagiarism
Pros opening round, and post relating to the southern strategy was copy paste Plagiarism from Dinesh D’Souza.[1]
Pro did not indicate this, and instead passed it off as his own argument.
As I did not accept a debate against multiple novels and movies by Dinesh D’Souza, but against pro - it is wholly dishonest for pro to present these arguments as his own, and for this reason pros entire opening around should be discounted.
0.) Resolution and Definitions
Pro is attempting to move the goalposts by changing the terms of the resolution.
0.1) Changing the resolution.
Pro adds his own additional emphasis that wasn’t in the original resolution, and ignores the opening line in his first round:
“In reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft.”
It’s clear that pro is and was arguing that the Democrat party IS NOW the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.
The resolution clearly implies that the Democratic Party is currently racist, intolerant and fascist.
One would not say that the Democratic Party is the party of States Rights - despite Democrats seceding, declaring and fighting a civil war on the subject.
If pro wanted to argue that the Democratic Party is historically racist, or WAS the party of racism: this should have been the resolution.
However as the resolution is relatively unambiguous, and he himself argues as if the resolution is as I explained in his opening round: my interpretation must be accepted
0.2.) What constitutes being the party of ....
Pro isn’t clear about the criteria he judges that one party is “the party of xxx”.
So let’s specify how voters can determine who has proven their position or not.
A party “is the party of racism/fascism/intolerance”: if those with racist, fascist, and intolerant views align or gravitate primarily with that party OR that the party primarily enacts or implements objectively racist, fascist and intolerant views.
That one side was racist in the past but is not now is insufficient (see 0.1)
I will continue to show that Racists, fascists, and the intolerant are broadly aligned with a different party than democrats - that if you you are a racist, you will likely align with republicans.
If fascists, racists and the intolerant are all primarily in one party - it seems self evident that this party is the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.
If pro cannot show that the Democratic Party has an overtly racist, fascist or intolerant platform; or that the racists, fascists and the intolerance are primarily Democratic - then pro has not affirmed the resolution and voters should vote for con
Moreover: the resolution means pro has to clearly show democrats are the party of all three. If I show only that the Democrats are not the party of racism, this negates the resolution.
0.3) Fascism definition.
Pro uses a singular definition of fascism to mean effectively government supremacy over the individual. That’s not really fascism - merely a component. There is no agreed definition of Fascism; but I will summarize key properties taken from multiple sources.[3][4][5]
A.) Highly Nationalistic promoting their country and the countries interests above that of the individuals.
B.) Highly militaristic, military symbolism and military rhetoric
C.) Scapegoating of a particular group - often based on race.
D.) Anti establishment - an idea that there is a plot by elites or enemies to harm the people.
E.) Focus on Tradition, and appeal to tradition and the past
F.) Centralized Government with a focus of society around Corporatism with a single authoritarian leader.
G.) Contempt for regular democracy.
H.) Violence, and suppression of political opponents using the tools of the state; treatment of any opponents as traitors to the people.
There are overlaps between this, and other authoritarian governments. Pros definition would also include Marxism (which isn’t fascism) - so should be excluded. The above is not exhaustive - but are the key properties of the generally agreed fascist regimes.
1.) Democrats are the party of Fascism
In the last round: I pointed out that the unambiguous fascists - the Neo Nazis that perform Hitler Salutes to Trump and fly Swastikas all generally appear to support Trump. They ran as members of the Republican Party and they donated to Trumps campaign.
This clearly demonstrates that the unambiguous Fascists are on balance Republican. This clearly negates the resolution.
1.1) Trump didn’t endorse them.
Pro made this argument in multiple places. Racists and Fascists are predominantly republican and primarily support republicans - as I showed.
Whether or not Trump, or Republicans accept this support does not refute the fact that the racists support them.
This support is the key factor here - Trump could be racist - but if most racists supported Democrats this would seem to affirm the resolution. The converse is true also.
It is this fact that fascists support Trump and republicans clearly refutes the notion that the Democratic Party is the party of Fascists.
1.2) Anti-Fa is Fascist
While Anti-Fa are vile thugs that should be condemned, they are not fascist by any objective definition.
Referring to the definition of Fascism in 0.3), and even pros definition of fascism he outlined at the end of the last round - Anti-Fa clearly doesn’t match any of the criteria on the list.
While a case could be made of political violence to suppress opposition; their actions tend to be limited mostly (but not exclusively) to right wing provocateurs. They don’t attack labor unions or police unions that support trump, or break up organized opposition as a political tool.
They cannot be considered brownshirts for this reason too, as well as that they aren’t under the control or command of the Democratic Party.
Worse, pro executed an absurd double standard; claiming Republicans aren’t the party of fascism because they reject the support of fascists. He does not seem to apply this same standard when democrats denounce Anti-Fa[2]
So anti-fa doesn’t make Democrats the party of fascism by pros own argument and definitions; nor the actual definition of fascism and reality.
1.3) The Democrats enact Fascist Policies.
Pro doesn’t specify what policy is fascist and instead merely refers to a link.
I accepted a debate against pro - not a writer of an Op Ed who likely had substantial time to write and craft his arguments in that Op Ed.
Pro needs to explain what aspects of Democratic policy fit into the points A-H above. Simply asserting that Fascist means big government as implied by the Op Ed would make places like Sweden and Denmark fit the definition of Fascist, which is clearly absurd.
This point should be rejected for this reason.
1.4.) Contextual comparison.
In A-H I have listed the key properties of fascist regimes.
When comparing these two to the political parties: it’s clear that the common thread is that the Republican Party broadly - and Donald Trump in particular echoes many of these fascist ideals and politics.
This is not to say that Donald Trump and Republicans are fascist - but if pro is using similarities to fascist principles as evidence that one party is racist - this should be compared to both to see which most adheres to fascist ideals.
Specifically, policies and actions taken by Republicans and Donald Trump that generally match Fascism:
America First, allusions to American Greatness, and making America Great and Trumps intrinsic Nationalism clearly parallel (A) in the definition above.
Trumps flag hugging, over symbolism of the flag, the usage of military symbolism, bald eagles, etc: pushing for a much stronger military, requests for a military parade all parallel (B)
Trumps Scapegoating of illegal immigrants, and eliciting fear in criminal aliens, gangs, etc is political rhetoric that parallels the (C) of fascism.
D.) Trump paints the establishment as wholly corrupt, and precious administrations as deliberately harming the US, or acting consistently to harm the American people with trade, alliances, etc. This clearly parallels (D).
Make America Great Again and Trumps frequent reliance on past ideals and nostalgia for the good old days of American Greatness clearly parallel (E)
Trump adopts a cult of personality - has claimed that he can shoot someone and wouldn’t lose support. He has portrayed himself as a strong man who, alone, is the only one who can fix the problems of the country, and is an expert at almost everything. This clearly mirrors (F)
While republicans do not by any means support government control - they do assuredly support corporatism : given the political power of corporations, and that former lobbyist and regulators are in charge of regulating the industry they were part of, this aligns with this corporatist notion by default: while fascism has tended to force conformity of corporations to politics - republicans do this mostly the other way around.[6]
Republican attempts at gerrymandering, ballot tossing, politically unbalanced voter purges, and fictitious appeals to fraud to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections are primarily Republican and align with (G) [7]
Trump has actively encouraged violence at rally’s, has attempted to use tools of the state to harm political enemies, brandishes a hostile press as “the enemy of the people”, has called political opponents and law enforcement officials “Traitors”. This aligns with (H)
Clearly - out of the two parties, Republicans obviously and objectively align more closely to the key principles of fascism here.
1.5.) David Duke and affiliation
Pro points out that Trump didn’t support Duke. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)
Pro points out that Duke used to be a Democrat. This is also irrelevant as the resolution is whether democrats are currently the party of racism. (see 0.1)
That he is Republican now; clearly indicates that republicans are now currently the party to which fascists and racists flock.
This negates the resolution.
Pro is asking voters to focus on past affiliation and completely ignore current affiliation without any justification. Why would a racist quit the democrats and join the republicans if the democrats aligned with his views?
1.6) But Hilary....
White supremacists gave Trump Money - this clearly indicates they support him, and that republicans are the party of fascists/white supremacists (see 0.2)
That Trump rejects those donations doesn’t negate the support. (See 1.1)
That Hilary allegedly took unrelated illegal donations doesn’t refute this either. This debate is not whataboutism concerning Hillary - but whether democrats are the party of racists/fascists.
As such, none of the points pro makes refutes the point being made.
1.7.) Democrat KKK members
Again, the debate is not that the Democratic Party used to be racist - but that it is now. (see 0.1)
None of the examples pro cites are recent, and the majority appear to be 1920s and 1930s, thus do not refute the point
1.8.) Robert Bryd
David Duke is still a white supremacist, has not apologized, and while not in the KKK is still very much affiliated with their beliefs. He is a Republican.[8]
Robert Byrd formally renounced his previous views on race, and changed both views and actions to be the antithesis of white supremacy in the 1970s.[9]
The two are not comparable for this reason; given it is reasonable to presume that his renunciation of his racial views is why he remained a democrat rather than - as Strom Thurmond - became a Republican.
Hence this does not refute the point.
1.9.) Kennedy admired Hitler - was a fascist.
Even if true - this is irrelevant. The past is not today.
Secondly, pro shows nothing but abstract sympathy - not any direct fascist influence of Fascism on Kennedy; nor any fascist policies.
2.) Racism.
Pro mostly drops all the key points I made about racism and white nationalism. I extend these across the board.
2.1.) Biden said racist things.
The Democratic Party may contain some racist people, and for its members (even high level members) to have said racist things in the past. This does not mean that the party is the party of racism by any means as former words of an individual are not necessarily related to the parties current platform, or the people that support it.
Pro must show that the platform the party holds is racist - or that racists predominantly support democrats - neither of which referencing Biden does.
Also: Pro is leading himself down a dangerous path, if pros criteria for being the party of racism is simply how many prominent politicians have said racist things - I am fairly sure that more current republicans have said more racist things than have had democrats.[10]
This point doesn’t negate that racists broadly affiliate with republicans; and if we apply the evidence of Nazis and White nationalists unabashedly running for office as Republicans, and individuals like Steve Kong mentioned in the previous round: I have already presented damning evidence that the racist things said by Republicans recently is much worse than that of current democrats.
2.2.) Republican districts correlate with racist attitudes.
The argument is not that voting republican makes you racist - but that if you are racist, the data clearly shows you’re a Republican.
In the two examples provided - there is a clear correlation with racist attitudes and the locations that vote republican.
One image shows racist attitudes - the second image highlights whether the district went democrat or republican. Attitudes tend to be more racist in the south, and rural areas : typical Republican strong holds.
Pro offers no other argument against this damning correlation with Racist attitudes and voting republican.
3.3.) Racists states vote for Republicans - democrats are thugs.
Heavily and historically racist states are staunchly Republican. Pro doesn’t contest this.
Pro again confuses the argument: Racists are Republican; not Republicans are racist.
Pros only defense is to claim that by this logic thugs are Democrats.
This fails for two reasons: first there is a causal link between attitudes and values you hold, and who you vote for : there is no such evident link between violence and who you vote for. This means while I can posit causation between racism and voting republican - there is no such link pro can posit between thuggery and voting Democratic.
Secondly - even if pro is correct and thugs vote democrat - that has nothing to do with the resolution.
2.4.) Only one straight white male in the presidential campaign.
Pro doesn’t offer an argument: but implies that the lack of white people running for president is somehow racist. As he doesn’t explain why, this can be ignored.
However, I will point out that even pros facts are faulty: straight and male aren’t races. Mike Bennet, Joe Biden, Bill De Blasio, Steve Bullock Mike Buttigieg, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mike Gravel, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Beto O Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bernie Sanders, Erik Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren, Marriane Williamson; are all white and running for the nomination. There are 6 minority candidates out of 24 (around 25%)[11]
2.5) The face of bigotry has changed. The KKK are no longer valid.
As shown - those with racist attitudes tend to vote republican. Nazis and the alt right white nationalist support republicans. Open white supremacists and Nazis run in elections as republicans.
This debate is not necessarily about the prevalence of racism, or bigotry in the US: but which party is the party that Racists affiliate with, or has a racist platform.
Saying the KKK are now small, does not refute any of the evidence provided that shows racists align with republicans.
4.) Tolerance
4.1.) Trump doesn’t endorse racism.
Pro again comments that pro doesn’t endorse racism. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)
4.2) Trump is/is not Racist.
Pro appear to be claiming Trump isn’t a racist. This is irrelevant to the resolution.
The Democratic Parties attitude to race, and lack of support of and by racists is unrelated to Trumps racial views.
I have demonstrated that racists predominantly affiliate with republicans - indicating that racists are primarily Republican: this demonstrably negates the resolution irrespective of whether Trump himself is a actually a racist or not.
4.3.) Muslim Ban
The validity of the Muslim Ban does not indicate that Democrats are the party of racism or intolerant. Therefore this does not support pros premise.
Worse; his claim that it stopped terrorists from terrorist breeding grounds is untrue.
The original ban proposed during the campaign was all Muslims regardless of origin or home country.[12]
DHS itself cast doubt on the validity of the argument by saying that citizenship wasn’t a good indicator of terrorism.[13]
This clearly indicates that the original ban was inherently intolerant - making it easier for the intolerant and racists to aide with republicans. This negates the resolution.
4.4.) Trump isn’t against immigrants - only illegal immigrants.
This is untrue. Trump also rails against legal immigration and wanting to reduce levels of legal immigration - this includes a major reduction in recugees. [14]
Trump also railed against legal immigrants from “shithole countries”.
Trump also is and has taken measure to prevent legal asylum claims from being processed at ports of entry.[15]
Currently, a majority of border crossing and detention are from those with asylum claims - while they committed a crime by crossing the border; they are staying because they are legally afforded the right to request asylum. Trump also reduced and limited the number of reasons for which legal asylum claims could be made.[16]
Thus claiming it’s just illegal immigrants is untrue: this helps my case that Republican Policy appear racist, and is policy racists could and would happily support.
However - it does nothin to support pros contention that Democrats are the party of intolerance; whereas it provides clear grounding for why racists and those intolerant of non-here immigrants would be attracted to the Republican party.
5.) Jim Crow and Civil Rights.
Pro here misconstrues my argument. Pro argues that racists democrats are dead, the Democratic Party is blameless.
This is nonsensical.
The Democratic Party does indeed have a racist past - but are not Racist any longer, due to both realignment and former racist democrats no longer being alive as covered in the last round.
My whole argument is that, given the evidence, if these democrats were alive and practicing politics today - they would be republican. This is spelt out in my proofs listed above, and validated by the evidence I have provided
5.1.) The Southern strategy.
Pros long and verbose rejection of the southern strategy is again plagiarized Verbatim from a Dinesh DeSouza book ; this should be rejected.
Pro is clearly not wanting to argue in good faith; by crafting his own arguments, and instead has simply copied other people repeatedly.
The southern Strategy is a matter of documented fact.
The south is currently a stronghold of racism and racist attitudes in the US(see previous round - point 2).
In 1964 - the deep south went to A Republican for the first time since reconstruction. In 1968, Nixon swept the south excluding the Deep South - which voted for an outright racist. In 1972, and mostly since; the south has been staunchly republican.
The idea that they switched to republican because they “became less racist” is not matched by facts; the south swung sharply to the republicans, then voted for a racist, then stayed Republican; and still has racist attitudes.
Worse, let’s simply quote Lee Atwater, a key republican strategist and his documented response to what the southern strategy actually was:
Plagiarism
Pros opening round, and post relating to the southern strategy was copy paste Plagiarism from Dinesh D’Souza.[1]
Pro did not indicate this, and instead passed it off as his own argument.
As I did not accept a debate against multiple novels and movies by Dinesh D’Souza, but against pro - it is wholly dishonest for pro to present these arguments as his own, and for this reason pros entire opening around should be discounted.
0.) Resolution and Definitions
Pro is attempting to move the goalposts by changing the terms of the resolution.
0.1) Changing the resolution.
Pro adds his own additional emphasis that wasn’t in the original resolution, and ignores the opening line in his first round:
“In reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft.”
It’s clear that pro is and was arguing that the Democrat party IS NOW the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.
The resolution clearly implies that the Democratic Party is currently racist, intolerant and fascist.
One would not say that the Democratic Party is the party of States Rights - despite Democrats seceding, declaring and fighting a civil war on the subject.
If pro wanted to argue that the Democratic Party is historically racist, or WAS the party of racism: this should have been the resolution.
However as the resolution is relatively unambiguous, and he himself argues as if the resolution is as I explained in his opening round: my interpretation must be accepted
0.2.) What constitutes being the party of ....
Pro isn’t clear about the criteria he judges that one party is “the party of xxx”.
So let’s specify how voters can determine who has proven their position or not.
A party “is the party of racism/fascism/intolerance”: if those with racist, fascist, and intolerant views align or gravitate primarily with that party OR that the party primarily enacts or implements objectively racist, fascist and intolerant views.
That one side was racist in the past but is not now is insufficient (see 0.1)
I will continue to show that Racists, fascists, and the intolerant are broadly aligned with a different party than democrats - that if you you are a racist, you will likely align with republicans.
If fascists, racists and the intolerant are all primarily in one party - it seems self evident that this party is the party of racism, fascism and intolerance.
If pro cannot show that the Democratic Party has an overtly racist, fascist or intolerant platform; or that the racists, fascists and the intolerance are primarily Democratic - then pro has not affirmed the resolution and voters should vote for con
Moreover: the resolution means pro has to clearly show democrats are the party of all three. If I show only that the Democrats are not the party of racism, this negates the resolution.
0.3) Fascism definition.
Pro uses a singular definition of fascism to mean effectively government supremacy over the individual. That’s not really fascism - merely a component. There is no agreed definition of Fascism; but I will summarize key properties taken from multiple sources.[3][4][5]
A.) Highly Nationalistic promoting their country and the countries interests above that of the individuals.
B.) Highly militaristic, military symbolism and military rhetoric
C.) Scapegoating of a particular group - often based on race.
D.) Anti establishment - an idea that there is a plot by elites or enemies to harm the people.
E.) Focus on Tradition, and appeal to tradition and the past
F.) Centralized Government with a focus of society around Corporatism with a single authoritarian leader.
G.) Contempt for regular democracy.
H.) Violence, and suppression of political opponents using the tools of the state; treatment of any opponents as traitors to the people.
There are overlaps between this, and other authoritarian governments. Pros definition would also include Marxism (which isn’t fascism) - so should be excluded. The above is not exhaustive - but are the key properties of the generally agreed fascist regimes.
1.) Democrats are the party of Fascism
In the last round: I pointed out that the unambiguous fascists - the Neo Nazis that perform Hitler Salutes to Trump and fly Swastikas all generally appear to support Trump. They ran as members of the Republican Party and they donated to Trumps campaign.
This clearly demonstrates that the unambiguous Fascists are on balance Republican. This clearly negates the resolution.
1.1) Trump didn’t endorse them.
Pro made this argument in multiple places. Racists and Fascists are predominantly republican and primarily support republicans - as I showed.
Whether or not Trump, or Republicans accept this support does not refute the fact that the racists support them.
This support is the key factor here - Trump could be racist - but if most racists supported Democrats this would seem to affirm the resolution. The converse is true also.
It is this fact that fascists support Trump and republicans clearly refutes the notion that the Democratic Party is the party of Fascists.
1.2) Anti-Fa is Fascist
While Anti-Fa are vile thugs that should be condemned, they are not fascist by any objective definition.
Referring to the definition of Fascism in 0.3), and even pros definition of fascism he outlined at the end of the last round - Anti-Fa clearly doesn’t match any of the criteria on the list.
While a case could be made of political violence to suppress opposition; their actions tend to be limited mostly (but not exclusively) to right wing provocateurs. They don’t attack labor unions or police unions that support trump, or break up organized opposition as a political tool.
They cannot be considered brownshirts for this reason too, as well as that they aren’t under the control or command of the Democratic Party.
Worse, pro executed an absurd double standard; claiming Republicans aren’t the party of fascism because they reject the support of fascists. He does not seem to apply this same standard when democrats denounce Anti-Fa[2]
So anti-fa doesn’t make Democrats the party of fascism by pros own argument and definitions; nor the actual definition of fascism and reality.
1.3) The Democrats enact Fascist Policies.
Pro doesn’t specify what policy is fascist and instead merely refers to a link.
I accepted a debate against pro - not a writer of an Op Ed who likely had substantial time to write and craft his arguments in that Op Ed.
Pro needs to explain what aspects of Democratic policy fit into the points A-H above. Simply asserting that Fascist means big government as implied by the Op Ed would make places like Sweden and Denmark fit the definition of Fascist, which is clearly absurd.
This point should be rejected for this reason.
1.4.) Contextual comparison.
In A-H I have listed the key properties of fascist regimes.
When comparing these two to the political parties: it’s clear that the common thread is that the Republican Party broadly - and Donald Trump in particular echoes many of these fascist ideals and politics.
This is not to say that Donald Trump and Republicans are fascist - but if pro is using similarities to fascist principles as evidence that one party is racist - this should be compared to both to see which most adheres to fascist ideals.
Specifically, policies and actions taken by Republicans and Donald Trump that generally match Fascism:
America First, allusions to American Greatness, and making America Great and Trumps intrinsic Nationalism clearly parallel (A) in the definition above.
Trumps flag hugging, over symbolism of the flag, the usage of military symbolism, bald eagles, etc: pushing for a much stronger military, requests for a military parade all parallel (B)
Trumps Scapegoating of illegal immigrants, and eliciting fear in criminal aliens, gangs, etc is political rhetoric that parallels the (C) of fascism.
D.) Trump paints the establishment as wholly corrupt, and precious administrations as deliberately harming the US, or acting consistently to harm the American people with trade, alliances, etc. This clearly parallels (D).
Make America Great Again and Trumps frequent reliance on past ideals and nostalgia for the good old days of American Greatness clearly parallel (E)
Trump adopts a cult of personality - has claimed that he can shoot someone and wouldn’t lose support. He has portrayed himself as a strong man who, alone, is the only one who can fix the problems of the country, and is an expert at almost everything. This clearly mirrors (F)
While republicans do not by any means support government control - they do assuredly support corporatism : given the political power of corporations, and that former lobbyist and regulators are in charge of regulating the industry they were part of, this aligns with this corporatist notion by default: while fascism has tended to force conformity of corporations to politics - republicans do this mostly the other way around.[6]
Republican attempts at gerrymandering, ballot tossing, politically unbalanced voter purges, and fictitious appeals to fraud to undermine the confidence in the outcome of elections are primarily Republican and align with (G) [7]
Trump has actively encouraged violence at rally’s, has attempted to use tools of the state to harm political enemies, brandishes a hostile press as “the enemy of the people”, has called political opponents and law enforcement officials “Traitors”. This aligns with (H)
Clearly - out of the two parties, Republicans obviously and objectively align more closely to the key principles of fascism here.
1.5.) David Duke and affiliation
Pro points out that Trump didn’t support Duke. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)
Pro points out that Duke used to be a Democrat. This is also irrelevant as the resolution is whether democrats are currently the party of racism. (see 0.1)
That he is Republican now; clearly indicates that republicans are now currently the party to which fascists and racists flock.
This negates the resolution.
Pro is asking voters to focus on past affiliation and completely ignore current affiliation without any justification. Why would a racist quit the democrats and join the republicans if the democrats aligned with his views?
1.6) But Hilary....
White supremacists gave Trump Money - this clearly indicates they support him, and that republicans are the party of fascists/white supremacists (see 0.2)
That Trump rejects those donations doesn’t negate the support. (See 1.1)
That Hilary allegedly took unrelated illegal donations doesn’t refute this either. This debate is not whataboutism concerning Hillary - but whether democrats are the party of racists/fascists.
As such, none of the points pro makes refutes the point being made.
1.7.) Democrat KKK members
Again, the debate is not that the Democratic Party used to be racist - but that it is now. (see 0.1)
None of the examples pro cites are recent, and the majority appear to be 1920s and 1930s, thus do not refute the point
1.8.) Robert Bryd
David Duke is still a white supremacist, has not apologized, and while not in the KKK is still very much affiliated with their beliefs. He is a Republican.[8]
Robert Byrd formally renounced his previous views on race, and changed both views and actions to be the antithesis of white supremacy in the 1970s.[9]
The two are not comparable for this reason; given it is reasonable to presume that his renunciation of his racial views is why he remained a democrat rather than - as Strom Thurmond - became a Republican.
Hence this does not refute the point.
1.9.) Kennedy admired Hitler - was a fascist.
Even if true - this is irrelevant. The past is not today.
Secondly, pro shows nothing but abstract sympathy - not any direct fascist influence of Fascism on Kennedy; nor any fascist policies.
2.) Racism.
Pro mostly drops all the key points I made about racism and white nationalism. I extend these across the board.
2.1.) Biden said racist things.
The Democratic Party may contain some racist people, and for its members (even high level members) to have said racist things in the past. This does not mean that the party is the party of racism by any means as former words of an individual are not necessarily related to the parties current platform, or the people that support it.
Pro must show that the platform the party holds is racist - or that racists predominantly support democrats - neither of which referencing Biden does.
Also: Pro is leading himself down a dangerous path, if pros criteria for being the party of racism is simply how many prominent politicians have said racist things - I am fairly sure that more current republicans have said more racist things than have had democrats.[10]
This point doesn’t negate that racists broadly affiliate with republicans; and if we apply the evidence of Nazis and White nationalists unabashedly running for office as Republicans, and individuals like Steve Kong mentioned in the previous round: I have already presented damning evidence that the racist things said by Republicans recently is much worse than that of current democrats.
2.2.) Republican districts correlate with racist attitudes.
The argument is not that voting republican makes you racist - but that if you are racist, the data clearly shows you’re a Republican.
In the two examples provided - there is a clear correlation with racist attitudes and the locations that vote republican.
One image shows racist attitudes - the second image highlights whether the district went democrat or republican. Attitudes tend to be more racist in the south, and rural areas : typical Republican strong holds.
Pro offers no other argument against this damning correlation with Racist attitudes and voting republican.
3.3.) Racists states vote for Republicans - democrats are thugs.
Heavily and historically racist states are staunchly Republican. Pro doesn’t contest this.
Pro again confuses the argument: Racists are Republican; not Republicans are racist.
Pros only defense is to claim that by this logic thugs are Democrats.
This fails for two reasons: first there is a causal link between attitudes and values you hold, and who you vote for : there is no such evident link between violence and who you vote for. This means while I can posit causation between racism and voting republican - there is no such link pro can posit between thuggery and voting Democratic.
Secondly - even if pro is correct and thugs vote democrat - that has nothing to do with the resolution.
2.4.) Only one straight white male in the presidential campaign.
Pro doesn’t offer an argument: but implies that the lack of white people running for president is somehow racist. As he doesn’t explain why, this can be ignored.
However, I will point out that even pros facts are faulty: straight and male aren’t races. Mike Bennet, Joe Biden, Bill De Blasio, Steve Bullock Mike Buttigieg, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mike Gravel, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Beto O Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bernie Sanders, Erik Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren, Marriane Williamson; are all white and running for the nomination. There are 6 minority candidates out of 24 (around 25%)[11]
2.5) The face of bigotry has changed. The KKK are no longer valid.
As shown - those with racist attitudes tend to vote republican. Nazis and the alt right white nationalist support republicans. Open white supremacists and Nazis run in elections as republicans.
This debate is not necessarily about the prevalence of racism, or bigotry in the US: but which party is the party that Racists affiliate with, or has a racist platform.
Saying the KKK are now small, does not refute any of the evidence provided that shows racists align with republicans.
4.) Tolerance
4.1.) Trump doesn’t endorse racism.
Pro again comments that pro doesn’t endorse racism. This is irrelevant (see 1.1)
4.2) Trump is/is not Racist.
Pro appear to be claiming Trump isn’t a racist. This is irrelevant to the resolution.
The Democratic Parties attitude to race, and lack of support of and by racists is unrelated to Trumps racial views.
I have demonstrated that racists predominantly affiliate with republicans - indicating that racists are primarily Republican: this demonstrably negates the resolution irrespective of whether Trump himself is a actually a racist or not.
4.3.) Muslim Ban
The validity of the Muslim Ban does not indicate that Democrats are the party of racism or intolerant. Therefore this does not support pros premise.
Worse; his claim that it stopped terrorists from terrorist breeding grounds is untrue.
The original ban proposed during the campaign was all Muslims regardless of origin or home country.[12]
DHS itself cast doubt on the validity of the argument by saying that citizenship wasn’t a good indicator of terrorism.[13]
This clearly indicates that the original ban was inherently intolerant - making it easier for the intolerant and racists to aide with republicans. This negates the resolution.
4.4.) Trump isn’t against immigrants - only illegal immigrants.
This is untrue. Trump also rails against legal immigration and wanting to reduce levels of legal immigration - this includes a major reduction in recugees. [14]
Trump also railed against legal immigrants from “shithole countries”.
Trump also is and has taken measure to prevent legal asylum claims from being processed at ports of entry.[15]
Currently, a majority of border crossing and detention are from those with asylum claims - while they committed a crime by crossing the border; they are staying because they are legally afforded the right to request asylum. Trump also reduced and limited the number of reasons for which legal asylum claims could be made.[16]
Thus claiming it’s just illegal immigrants is untrue: this helps my case that Republican Policy appear racist, and is policy racists could and would happily support.
However - it does nothin to support pros contention that Democrats are the party of intolerance; whereas it provides clear grounding for why racists and those intolerant of non-here immigrants would be attracted to the Republican party.
5.) Jim Crow and Civil Rights.
Pro here misconstrues my argument. Pro argues that racists democrats are dead, the Democratic Party is blameless.
This is nonsensical.
The Democratic Party does indeed have a racist past - but are not Racist any longer, due to both realignment and former racist democrats no longer being alive as covered in the last round.
My whole argument is that, given the evidence, if these democrats were alive and practicing politics today - they would be republican. This is spelt out in my proofs listed above, and validated by the evidence I have provided
5.1.) The Southern strategy.
Pros long and verbose rejection of the southern strategy is again plagiarized Verbatim from a Dinesh DeSouza book ; this should be rejected.
Pro is clearly not wanting to argue in good faith; by crafting his own arguments, and instead has simply copied other people repeatedly.
The southern Strategy is a matter of documented fact.
The south is currently a stronghold of racism and racist attitudes in the US(see previous round - point 2).
In 1964 - the deep south went to A Republican for the first time since reconstruction. In 1968, Nixon swept the south excluding the Deep South - which voted for an outright racist. In 1972, and mostly since; the south has been staunchly republican.
The idea that they switched to republican because they “became less racist” is not matched by facts; the south swung sharply to the republicans, then voted for a racist, then stayed Republican; and still has racist attitudes.
Worse, let’s simply quote Lee Atwater, a key republican strategist and his documented response to what the southern strategy actually was:
“Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."”[17]
This clearly and demonstrably indicates the southern strategy was a definitive and ultimately successful strategy for republicans to win over white racists alienated by the Democrats civil rights movement.
6.) Drops / uncontested
Pro raised a significant number of points in round 1; then dropped the majority of them.
Pro drops that democrats were responsible for wiping out fascist governments.
Pro drops that Andrew Jackson was a racist president - and is supported by Trump.
Pro drops that stopping poor immigrants entering the country is racist - and is currently supported by the Republican Party.
Pro drops that preferring white immigrants is racist - and yet something Trump is doing today.
Pro drops that the democrats are diverse, whilst republicans are not: thus there is no evidence that they are currently the party of intolerance.
Pro does not contest that areas with more racist attitudes tend to vote republican.
Pro does not contest that most actual Nazis and white supremacists appear to support Trump.
Pro does not contest that white supremacists and Nazis ran as Republican candidates
Pro does not contest that white supremacist financially supported republicans.
I extend all of these across the board.
Conclusions:
In this round I showed that Trump and Republicans have a political approach that shares more parallels with Fascism than does Democrats.
I continued to show that fascists and racists affiliate with republicans more than democrats.
Pro offered no examples of how the Democratic platform is racist, intolerant, or fascist, and remains fixated solely on matters of the past, which as shown are now reversed.
[1]https://books.google.ca/books?id=gIq0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=In+reality+the+Democratic+Party+is+now+what+it+has+been+from+the+beginning—the+party+of+subjugation,+oppression,+exploitation,+and+theft.&source=bl&ots=G5HT1n4MxD&sig=ACfU3U0Uxl_Zp38Jedi7D3q1tiXVAQ-8CQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjm_6q819XiAhUmc98KHX80DE8Q6AEwAHoECAMQAQ
[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/?utm_term=.6d18fa696acc
[3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
[5]https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/dec/11/republican-anti-democracy-gerrymandering-voting-rights-state-laws
[8] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/02/at-least-robert-byrd-apologized-whats-your-excuse-david-duke/?utm_term=.1a396924a63a
[9] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/106809-robert-byrd-a-true-statesman-rep-john-lewis
[10]https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-republican-party-racism-20190114-story.html
[11] https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020
[12] https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/index.html
[13] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/02/leaked-dhs-report-undermines-trumps-argument-for-travel-ban.html
[14] https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained
[15] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal
[16] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/01/718927695/how-proposed-asylum-rule-changes-would-affect-asylum-seekers
[17] https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Round 3
Round 5
Con
#10
As pro has not responded, I am going to simply provide a summary of this debate.
Voting summary:
Arguments:
The following are the main arguments provided:
1.) Who is the current party of racism. I argued that this debate should be interpreted as who is the party of racism currently, and have presented an argument as to why. Pro dropped all these points.
2.) Fascism. I showed that Fascists, Nazis align with Republicans, and that they align more closely in terms of current policy. Pro has offered no specific examples of how the democrats currently align with fascists. Pro drops all these points
3.) Racism. I showed that racist attitudes are prevalent in the southern and rural areas that tend to vote for republicans; and that currently those that are white supremacist and racist tend to align with republicans. Pro drops all these points.
4.) Tolerance. I showed that the Democrats are the most diverse and inclusive group - strongly implying that they are the more tolerant party. Pro drops this.
5.) Pros case. Pros opening round, and the majority of the second can be discarded due to plagiarism. Pros case revolves around arguing Democrats used to be racist. As shown - this is now irrelevant due to the party realignment.
The conclusion here must be to con - as the resolution was disproven on all three counts and pro has not provided his own burden of proof.
Conduct. Pro forfeited the majority of the rounds, and plagiarized most of his debate.
Sources: I have provided compelling sources that back up by position. Sources 7 and 8 provide the key proofs that areas with high prevalence of racist attitudes vote republicans.
Voting summary:
Arguments:
The following are the main arguments provided:
1.) Who is the current party of racism. I argued that this debate should be interpreted as who is the party of racism currently, and have presented an argument as to why. Pro dropped all these points.
2.) Fascism. I showed that Fascists, Nazis align with Republicans, and that they align more closely in terms of current policy. Pro has offered no specific examples of how the democrats currently align with fascists. Pro drops all these points
3.) Racism. I showed that racist attitudes are prevalent in the southern and rural areas that tend to vote for republicans; and that currently those that are white supremacist and racist tend to align with republicans. Pro drops all these points.
4.) Tolerance. I showed that the Democrats are the most diverse and inclusive group - strongly implying that they are the more tolerant party. Pro drops this.
5.) Pros case. Pros opening round, and the majority of the second can be discarded due to plagiarism. Pros case revolves around arguing Democrats used to be racist. As shown - this is now irrelevant due to the party realignment.
The conclusion here must be to con - as the resolution was disproven on all three counts and pro has not provided his own burden of proof.
Conduct. Pro forfeited the majority of the rounds, and plagiarized most of his debate.
Sources: I have provided compelling sources that back up by position. Sources 7 and 8 provide the key proofs that areas with high prevalence of racist attitudes vote republicans.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Nearly a full forfeit, and pro plagiarized almost his entire argument.
Arguments: cons ended up being non-contested, and pro's were thrown out.
Sources: con gets this for identifying the plagiarism (effectively stealing all value that pro could have had there had he made proper citations). He would have gotten it anyway for unending high quality sources every round.
Conduct: see first paragraph.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
60% forfeit on Pro's part with plagiarism as the majority of the case. Conduct to Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The instigator's Round 1 argument is copied from Dinesh's book: Hillary's America:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gIq0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Simply pick any sentence. Use CTRL+F on the link I just gave and find the sentence he plagiarized.
The instigator also forfeited 2 Rounds out of 5.
If plagiarism is not worthy of a bad conduct point it should be added to the rules.
With plagiarism and 2 Rounds forfeited the contender gains the conduct point for not forfeiting for plagiarizing.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I'd like to thank both opponents for this debate.
POOR CONDUCT
Pro forfeited 3/5 rounds, that's poor conduct!
Not only this but since they FF the majority of the rounds they technically didn't respond to Cons arguments and Con's arguments still stand.
Moving right along,
PLAGIARISM
Pro plagiarized several arguments he made, that's poor conduct!
Rigghhht.
So Nazis Zeig-heiling Trump don’t really count as fascists, because we all know fascists are really anyone who feels Society is better served by additional government managed programs organized to try and provide equality of opportunity its citizens?
Nazis arent just fascists, they are more fascists.
Most *white* nationalist are republicans.
Also.
Most “Fascists” do indeed affiliate with the Republicans, they classify themselves as part of the Alt-Right. Hence all the Nazi flags at the “unite the right” march, hence why at an Alt Right conference, they Nazi Saluted Donald Trumps Victory.
While you maybe preoccupied with insulting the left moreso than being either accurate or factual, at least we should be able to agree that actual Nazis are fascists?
Now I'll admit that most nationalists are republicans but not fascists. I dont insult the left is a mob in America.
Yes, most communists are Democrats, most Fascists - and the majority of White Nationalists are Republican.
What you’re doing, is pretending that “Fascism” means big government that’s not what Fascism means. Liberalism, again, also doesn’t really mean big government.
Fascism, is an authoritarian political system categorized by overt militarism, appeal to racial purity and Scapegoating of racial groups in order to promote internal unity. It relies on part on corporatism - the big german companies made out like bandits, and inherent military strength. Fascists authoritarian governments do tend to be big, but not all big governments are fascists.
It seems like so many other conservatives you don’t really have an argument, or specific facts, your more interested in hurling tropes and insults. Perhaps you should read up on how the German people were indoctrinated through systems of Propoganda. There are some stark parallels with what is going on with the right wing fake news machine.
Ramshustu is Stacey Abrams CONFIRMED
WHAT are you insane. "All fascists are republicans" Yeah ok buddy that is a GROSS GENERALIZATION OF FASCISTS. All communists are democrats then. I can play your game. Yeah i'm not looking up definitions from leftist wikipedia or Google.
Fascism-Big government
Liberalism-big government
Not that hard to understand
The Republican Party isn’t Fascist, but all fascists are republicans.
You really should google what fascism means, because it seems you just want to define it as “anything that the Democrats Do” rather than what if actually means.
I listed key properties of fascism - and how the Republican Party follows them, those are much more
Commensurate with what Fascism actually entails.
But that isn't the "republican party". Try and name a leading republican who are a fascist and no fake voter suppression doesn't count,nice try, what are you- Stacey Abrams. Democrats have fascism not in the form of nazism. Very large governments are like fascism ideas. I got more quotes too!
"Most bad government stems from BIG government"-Thomas Jefferson.
But hey lets not get wrong fabricated facts in the way of the truth
A.) That’s not really true - Fascists were primarily corporatists. The Nazis specifically put socialist in the name of the party for Pr reasons to steal support from actual socialists. Indeed - Facsism was historically a right wing response to organized left wing labour movements - including socialism.
B.) Today, Neo- Nazis, white nationalists, Authoritarians, are all mostly Republican. Overt Militarilism, Nationalistic displays of patriotism and the upholding of patriotic symbols to almost a religious extent, again - all Republicans. Implicit dog whistles of racial purity with loaded language such as “breeding”, the whiteness of the country, and pressing the danger of changing racial demographics - also mainly Republicans. Even Democracy - right now, you have republicans controlled elections purging voters, trying to make it harder forpeople to vote, excessively GerryMandering their areas, and raising the alarm about fictitious voter fraud in order to generate public support (in person voter fraud is non existent - trump lies about it, the texas SoS recently resigned after being caught lying about it, Kansas voter fraud guy lied about it repeatedly... again, mostly republican.
But hey, don’t let a snazzy quote get in the way of facts
"if fascism ever came to America,it will come in the name of liberalism"-Ronald Reagen
Keep in mind Nazi's were their SOCIALIST party of their country
Nice Rebuttal, wish I could have accepted in time but you'll probably be better in this debate anyways as evidenced by your R1 rebuttal.