Cruz: "The Democrats are the party of the KKK"

God damn it Ted! Just when I start to think "you know, he's goofy and autistic, but he's not dumb" he goes and says this.

What the fuck is this guy's problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-‘the-democrats-are-the-party-of-the-ku-klux-klan’/ar-AAmJYyH?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
youtube.com/watch?v=4jVlIfaKa0I
youtube.com/watch?v=2RBFOTdY1yY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ
realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html
youtube.com/watch?v=LDOdcsh435Q
twitter.com/AnonBabble

post link, I haven't seen it yet

Source:

msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-‘the-democrats-are-the-party-of-the-ku-klux-klan’/ar-AAmJYyH?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

MUH WHITE PEOPLE

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

>>WHITE GENOCIDE Sup Forums

Well he's not wrong

cool, is there a link to the whole thing?

He isn't but when it comes down to it the descendants of those KKK democrats are now republicans. Northerners and southerners didn't geographically switch places.

It is, though.

the big switch is a fucking lie and you should know this user

...

That's not the point. The point is he's attacking our guys, and making the right look retarded. Saying this does nothing but turn away white voters. We're trying to make the Republican party the cut & clear party for white interests, for white identity, the same way the Democratic party is the party for minority interests. We want to make it so that the only whites who would ever vote Democrat are self-loathing ethnomasochistic cucks. He's not going to draw in any shitskin voters by saying this; who is he kidding?

youtube.com/watch?v=4jVlIfaKa0I

thanks mate

The parties did switch policies my man. The whole argument of "they are the real racists" never really held much ground, i don't really see a problem with being tied to a historically pro white ideology. If we are to beat them, it will be with facts, not playing around like a Jew.

Of course the Democrats were the party of the KKK, but now the dems are the left, and the republicans are the right.

Well you might as well just call it the big conversion now looking at the 2016 electoral map.

No it isn't, people literally switched parties en masse. There were a handful of holdout liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats but hardly any are left at this point.

>guess where this was

.02 shekels have been deposited into your accounts... thanks Shareblue

>say something that's blatantly false and can be disproven with a google search
>three people point out that you're spreading bullshit falsehood
>"hurr you're jewish!!!"

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.

>blacks literally herded into ghettos separated from affluent whites in liberal run northern major cities
>war on poverty literally creates permanent under class of dark skinned people
>democrats are no longer racist
Suuuuuuuuure.

God speed, Lion Ted.

youtube.com/watch?v=2RBFOTdY1yY

Give evidence to support this, please.

>muh Democrats are the REAL racists!

It's stupid, but very common among cuckservatives. They've accepted the left's ideology and internalized it to the point where it constrains their ability to form rational positions.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=2RBFOTdY1yY

Because they are

sure there is some truth to this, America was in political turmoil in the 60s, but we are not talking about 1965, we are talking about 2017, the republicans are the right, the democrats are the (spread my asscheeks for minorities) left

Yes but the original argument is that the racists are republicans now, and democrats are all for inclusion of everyone.

What has instead happened is the blacks are voting for gibsmedats and a lot of whites have become blinded by falsehoods and are now themselves niggers.


Lyndon B Johnson - I'll have those niggers voting democratic for 200 years.

Their actions certainly hurt minorities more than they help them, but even using the R-word is just playing by their rules; stooping to their level.

On a macro-level, even addressing race at all just plays into the hands of the Democrats. No matter how much you say "I'm not racist, they're the real racists" the Democrats will always win the minority vote by playing the race card.

What the Republicans should be doing is acknowledging that they're never going to win the non-white vote, and stop pandering to it; instead choosing to give whites a party that will fight for their best interests.

>*revisionism intensifies*

Show me proof of the big switch.

>le local governments are le most important when it's politically convenient meme
>Mark Levin
Post discarded.

...

Democrats are also the party of slavery

SmugTed meme when?

...

You sure can meme, but I don't see a lot of evidence.

Are you colorblind? The South turned red after the 60s with the exception of 1976, when the South was part of a larger blue bloc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

You Dems will never forgive the republicans for freeing your slaves will you?

>Who is Bill Clinton?

He's using the Donald Trump method. Why wouldn't he use a winning strategy?

Did you read the section under "Debates"?

Just because one narrative is given doesn't mean that's the narrative of what actually happened.

I swear to god you underaged faggots never learned critical thinking.

he couldn't have become president anyway, he was born in Canada. (McCain was born on some US military base)

what exactly do you think constitutes "right"?

>none of these people have heard of Dinesh
Quit your bullshit. Blacks have been democrats since FDR and the Dixiecrats stayed a thing until the 80's, well after the Civil Rights movement was over.

When will this meme die?

> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
And for your perusal
youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/misunderstanding_the_southern_realignment_107084.html

Political scientist Nelson W. Polsby argued that economic development was more central than racial desegregation in the evolution of the postwar South in Congress.[95] In The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South the British political scientist Byron E. Shafer and the Canadian Richard Johnston, developed the Polsby the argument in greater depth. Using roll call analysis of voting patterns in the House of Representatives, they found that Issues of desegregation and race were less important than issues of economics and social class when it came to the transformation of partisanship in the South.[96] This view is backed by Glenn Feldman who notes that the early narratives on the southern realignment focused on the idea of appealing to racism. This argument was first and thus took hold as the accepted narrative. He notes, however, that Lassiter's dissenting view on this subject, a view that the realignment was a "suburban strategy" rather than a "southern strategy" was just one of the first of a rapidly growing list of scholars who see the civil rights, "white backlash" as a secondary or minor factor. Authors such as Tim Boyd, George Lewis, Michael Bowen, and John W. White follow the lead of Lassiter, Shafer and Johnston in viewing suburban voters and their self interests as the primary reason for the realignment. He doesn't discount race as part of the motivation of these suburban voters who were fleeing urban crime and school busing.[10]

Literally nothing to do with what I said.

But it literally is the party of the KKK.

Well his statement is correct. The KKK were formed by Democrats as a response to the emancipation and reconstruction after the civil war.

Don't give me any of that "but the parties switched ideological sides!!" horseshit either, it's demonstrably false.

its still how they respond

...

t. A fucking leaf

Shitposting a Pajeet self-proclaimed Neo-con isn't helping your argument. He's just trying to deflect admitting that the Republican party is the party of white interests. He goes along with it because their policies are better for his bottom line since he's a wealthy businessman, but he knows the truth.

Notice how all these examples of "muh raycis KKK democrats" are from pre-1968? Really gets those almonds thinking, doesn't it?

You're a fucking psycho. White interest? A white party? You are so disconnected from reality it's insane. Start a new party if you want a white identity group, and enjoy never having power because people see and read you defending retarded KU Klux Klan who have done nothing but damage and darken the image of whites in America. Holy shit you're deluded. Yes I mad

The first year he was elected, the South was approximately half red. The second time, it was almost all red.
The fact that it's debated doesn't negate that Nixon himself never denied using the strategy, or the fact the majority of actual racism comes from the far-right.
The Dixiecrats dissolved in 1948, you fucking revisionist.
>Dinesh D'Souza
Conspiracy theorist.
It's a gradual alignment. That's the point in the article.
>it's demonstrably false.
Wrong.
Thomas Jefferson held slaves and may have been a rapist. That doesn't stop libertarians and conservatives from worshiping him. Reagan tried many, many times to kill Fidel Castro, which is HIGHLY illegal. That doesn't stop conservatives from worshiping him.

Where are your facts?

I love this timeline

You can't fix stupid.

We already have a de facto anti-white party.

youtube.com/watch?v=LDOdcsh435Q

The idea that there won't be a reaction to this is disconnected from reality.

>Start a new party

Why? We've already taken one over.

>Implying you didn't previously say "The South turned red after the 60s with the exception of 1976, when the South was part of a larger blue bloc"

I just posted them. You mean proofs?

>It's a gradual alignment.
That started long before the Civil Rights Act and lasted long after. The big switch narrative is a lie.

>this much autism and chrischan like arguement structure

I think this was /our guy/ all along

>Sup Forums
>still falling for the mainstream (((politicians)))

>The fact that it's debated doesn't negate that Nixon himself never denied using the strategy

Nixon denied it at the time, and Pat Buchanan analyzes and refutes the issue in some detail in _The Greatest Comeback_

>racism is a systemic problem that will require a very long time to properly address
>oh but the parties switched positions in the space of a few years, yeah