Democratic party, the party of the KKK and the slavery South.

Just, kidding. Happy Holidays!

Cuz one was used to mobilize troops in defense of the terrible cause of continued enslavement of black Americans

The other is just a party whose policies you don’t like

The Confederate States of America went through three different flags during the Civil War, but the battle flag wasn’t one of them. Instead, the flag that most people associate with the Confederacy was the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.

Designed by the Confederate politician William Porcher Miles, the flag was rejected for use as the Confederacy’s official emblem, although it was incorporated into the two later flags as a canton. It only came to be the flag most prominently associated with the Confederacy after the South lost the war.

This is all true. It still doesn't change the fact that the confederate flag as it exists today stands for being proud of being traitors to the union.

Depends on your point of view. Many people say it stands for a tribute of the fallen solders of the confederate army.

Uhhhh.... Both were. Look it up.

The donkey symbol didn’t represent Democrats until 1870.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/political-animals-republican-elephants-and-democratic-donkeys-89241754/

Did you read that article. It clearly points out that the image donkey was first used to depict democrats in 1837 but that the term jackass was used before that.

The point of the meme is not the donkey,it's the party.

It was never used to rally Confederate troops and there were Democrats who were unionists.

Either way, the idea that Democrats in 1860 represent Democrats today is just as farcical as the notion that the Party of Lincoln bears any resemblance to modern-day Republicans.

Right that's the point! Read the meme again.

The meme’s implying that modern-day Democrats (Donkey) are on par with a treasonous secessionist movement that fought for the continued enslavement of black Americans (Confederate flag)

That message is underscored by the similar design choice for the donkey (white stars, red/blue color scheme)

At least, that is why everyone is upvoting this. Only dumb attacks on Democrats get this many upvotes in “politics.”

Well... Maybe you now have an understanding of what it is like to have a symbol you identify with be called a hate symbol by people who see it differently.

In full disclosure, I do feel that the modern day democrats are treasonous and they wish to enslave us under a police state. So any Democrat that is offended by this collateral damage I'm willing to accept.

The Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of hate for some and a symbol of "heritage" for others. However, I think those who claim it as "heritage" are putting their sentiments in the wrong place. The Confederacy was only around for 4 years and it was a treasonous, backward political movement responsible for the darkest chapter of our history.

I am a white boy from the south. I have ancestors who fought and died for the Confederacy. I've visited their gravesites on the preserved battlefields. I can only speculate as to their reasons why they fought for the Confederacy. Geography was not destiny, as plenty of other Tennesseans fought on the side of the Union.

I find it difficult to reconcile true patriotism and genuine love for this flag with a celebration for the Confederate battle flag, which was pitted directly against this flag on many gruesome days of pitched battle. I am an American and I love and cherish what the American flag represents. Though I am from the south, I don't recognize the Confederacy as part of my "heritage."

The vast majority of people who fought for the confederacy weren't fighting to keep slavery, since they couldn't /afford/ a slave. Slave owners were a tiny but wealthy percentage of the population. (Oh, and they weren't all white, either. There were many black and even native american slave owners as well.)

The war wasn't even specifically /about/ slavery, that was just a factor in it. The north had abrogated the agreement made when the southern states joined the union, the agreement that they would be allowed self-governance and lawmaking.

Therefore, those states chose to secede from the union, or to try to at least, and that's what caused the war.

Of course, being "from the south", I'm sure you already know all this.

My ancestors didn't own slaves, as far as I know. That part of our "heritage" wasn't passed down. Though, honestly, with the number of ancestors we all have when we go back far enough, it's likely that every white American whose family has been here for some time has at least one great-great-great-great-great grandparent who was a slaver.

Who knows why these poor whites fought for the south? Perhaps for the same reason many poor whites vote against their economic interests by voting GOP today -- ideological brainwashing. Poor whites have always been easy to motivate by the prospect of maintaining what little social status they have by keeping some other group below them. Whether that's blacks, immigrants, or whoever.

Slavery was "a factor" in the Civil War, but it was by far the predominating factor, and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

The "north" didn't renege on shit. Lincoln even said in his first inaugural address that he was not going to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed. Compromises could have continued to be found, as they had in the past, and the institution of slavery could have ended peacefully as it did elsewhere around the world.

Instead the south took their ball and went home.

I mean, democrats still pro slavery. Why else will they want illegal immigration if is not to have cheap labor with no benefits such as minimum wage, retirement, medical? That sounds like slavery to me, doesn't it sound like that to you? Then the voters like idiots eat the cost.

On another meme I explained this: Democrats want a path to legal status for these people. Republicans want to keep them in the shadows perpetually where they may be more easily exploited.

Spoiler alert: building a wall is not going to keep them out. (Not that “the wall“ is really being built anyway) And does nothing for those who are already here.

"Democrats want a path to legal status for these people." Yeah you keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. Definitely not by their actions. You are a pro slavery bitch. Wall is not going to keep them out, maybe not all of them but a large percentage is. Bringing them here will not fix anything, the wall will not fix anything either. Helping them in their own land is the only fix so that they do not have a need to leave their families risking their live to cross illegally a bordered nation. If you care for them, go help them at their own country so that they can enjoy their country's riches. But no, cheap labor is convenient, that is how the pyramids got build. You keep dreaming your party cares about them, that is a very high cloud you are on mate. Cheers.

Thank you for finally admitting after 3 years that walls don't work. Very progressive of you.

I mean, you can get up your lazy but and help them build homes, sewer/piping systems and school like some churches are already doing and could use some help....

BTW, not YOUR lazy butt, but a whole lot of people. It is a collective effort. Cant let government do it all.

True and thank you for the clarification. I don't think I've built a house in decades. Not all by my lonesome. I use to do some carpentry. Very low level stuff. Shelves mostly. But occasionally I would be brought in for counters and pantries. Always fun. It is very enjoyable to see something go up like that, especially in a group effort, getting a house together in a span of weeks or so, barring good weather of course. Although that was before all these standards and regulations came about. Some good, but makes for less creative solutions.

that will be another subject, but we do need lots less regulations specially for small private own businesses. But we also need to stop depending on government so much and do stuff for ourselves. Baby steps.

I said the wall will stop a large number of them, but I also said that does not fixes the issue. I also provided a solution to the issue, did you intentionally ignored that part?

"Helping them in their own land is the only fix so that they do not have a need to leave their families risking their live to cross illegally a bordered nation."

Our government's solution is to throw money at the situation. Or to neutralize/placate other country's governments and leaders that don't share our interests and bolster or support governments and leaders that do (partisan or otherwise). That solution has not fared well. I suppose you could argue the competence of our government is the fault, not the solution in and of itself.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-democratic-party-did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/

try again, @Fauscovai

@AaronMccorvey. Boy you guys are surely working hard to cover your tracks. Lets see. Kkk was founded by confederate veterans ar shown here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan

Who where confederate veterans? You can find that here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

Put those two together...yes it was democrats who still today support slavery. It has always been the republicans fighting their demented causes.

Good job finding articles that conveniently to hide and skew history. Freaking usatoday...pft. left-wing biased garbage: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/usa-today-media-bias

Thanks for wasting my time Aaron.

Typical Right winger denying everything.

You just ignore Strom Thurmond, A Dixiecrat, who became republican in 1964. The same year Lyndon B. Johnson, A DEMOCRAT, passed the civil rights act. how do you know USAtoday is leftist? you dont. You dont even understand left-wing Politics.
Also
Democrat and SOUTHERN Democrat are technically 2 different things. try again, Fauscovai.

P.S. Wikipedia is not a Source
-Every Single Teacher in Existence, even though its accurate sometimes, It is not a source.

Yeah whatever. Democrats where reacist then and still racist now. You guys even elected a racist president. Quit your excuses.

Oh i guess Trump never segregated the Trump Tower or tried a ban on the Muslims coming to the US, but you claim without proof that Joe Biden is racist. you cant even spell racist right lol. try again. Trump even has the support of NAZIS

And look up the Central Park 5, 5 falsely accused coloreds whom trump wanted to give the death penalty because a lazy investigation went and wanted the case over and done with. Then you will see The Nazi Trump is

Neither are farcical and both can be proven unequivocally. Only now, Democrats have taken off their Klan hats and exchanges them for suits where they now serve in Washington and Liberal universities pushing "Progressive" policies and false historical narratives.

Democrats have also learned they could better benefit from blacks by exploiting them for political gain. So they shifted their focus from blacks serving them in cotton fields, to blacks serving them in inner-city ghettos in perpetual poverty by social programs engineered by racist Dixicrats like LBJ.

If you're going to attempt to advance the common, false, liberal, historical narrative that the parties "Switch sides" You're going to need to answer two questions.

First. If it's true that the parties "Switched sides" as "progressives claim" - why is there is zero historical evidence of large swaths of racist Dixiecrats switching over to the Republican party?

Second. If it's fact true that blacks started voting for Democrats due to Democrats being the party of "Civil rights " why did a shift of blacks voting for Democrats largely occur in the 30s and 40s under FDR's new deal benefits, and not in the 60s under civil rights legislation?

Not to mention that it was under FDR that the Japanese that were put into internment camps. LBJ president was when MLK Jr was assassinated (tin foil hat). And the Dem party was more heavily apposed to civil rights and integration than Republicans.

Yeah, 1870, when the dems were still /openly/ racist. The so-called "switch" didn't happen until the late 1950s.

Racist attitudes were rampant back then. Even Lincoln thought blacks were inferior, though he did more to further their rights than anyone before or since.

I maintain it doesn't make sense to compare the modern-day racial attitudes of either party to what they were 150 years ago.

I agree. Why apply that standard to one and not the other though. It's isn't okay to confirm the Democrat party for their past, but it is okay to do so for the Confederate flag. Be logically consistent.

Because the Confederacy died in 1865 and was frozen in history, while the Democratic Party continued on and has undergone dramatic transformations over the past 160 years of its history.

Maybe the Confederacy won the Civil War and later abolished slavery and established peaceful relations with the U.S., then we’d view it differently today. Perhaps more like a Southern Canada. But that’s not what happened.

What about the people that fly the flag. Or identify with the CSA as part of their histoy. They are still alive. Why can't that symbol and it's subjective interpretation change with time.

It's like Alexander the great. He was hated in the classical world for his acts, but then the Romans adopted him as a symbol because of how the perceived him. Now he is a historic symbol. But he still did terrible acts like put whole cities to the sword. If someone likes him are they pro genocide?

Or if someone likes India, or specifically Ghandi, or has an Hindu piece of art in their house/tattoo are they pro race based class systems with near slavery conditions?

Yes, if you admire Alexander the Great for being a warlord, you're pro-genocide. It's as simple as that.

If you embrace the confederate flag as a part of your pure white heritage, then you're proudly supporting racism.

I can’t claim that I have a grand unifying theory on the use of symbols and what they mean or how their meanings change down through history.

But for me, and many other Americans, the association between the Confederate Battle Flag and slavery is about as rock-solid as the association between the Nazi Swastika and genocide against Jews and other peoples systematically exterminated by the Nazis.

I am told that the Swastika (in reversed form) actually meant something positive before the Nazis came along, but the sad fact is the Nazis pretty much ruined that symbol for anyone who would want to use it in a positive way thereafter.

If you want to fly a swastika flag as a celebration of Hindu spirituality, or whatever, then you run the significant risk of your action being interpreted the wrong way.

Same with the Confederate flag. To you, it’s just heritage. To others, it’s a symbol of treason, slavery, and racism that just won’t die and that wounds every time it’s displayed.

You have the 1st Amendment right to fly the Confederate battle flag. But if you really wish to celebrate it, better to do it in the privacy of your own home out of deference to those whom it could harm.

The swastika either way was a good symbol. Finland has used it for their military since 1918. Google image "Finnish military swastika" you'll see some interesting pictures.

That's a generalization. But yes, it appears the KKK now predominately and openly supports Republican representatives.

And the Confederate army hasn't existed of 140 years, but yet the flag is still a symbol that represents (by some) southern slavery. My question is why isn't the party that was the Confederate government and their paramilitary organization (KKK) as much of a symbol of racism as their flag.

They don't support slavery because they can't and it's against the law. Republicans were largely responsible for putting a stop to this. They also learned they could better benefit from blacks by exploiting them for political gain. The industrial revolution also played a role in this, because as machinery became more advanced, it more and more replaced slave labor. Modern Democrats don't support it for these reasons.

Ahh, yes, that unwaveringly monolithic clump of a childlike race utterly incapable of making personal choices and thus in need of guidance by superiors to steer it in the right direction as the drones they were made to be.
Which master shall it swear its allegiance to, those in the North who fought so gallantly to free them, or the their former owners in the South who have since changed their minds since the 1960s as they themselves were forced to allow their former property to look them in the eye and drink of their water, in time switching to the party of Lincoln to express where they stand on inequality, albeit a century too late.

I love this site.

That's a cute story, but now that it's told and Democrats lemmings are wiping tears from their eyes after having bought it, let's have some citations which Demonstrates larges swaths of Racist Dixiecrats having " Switched" sides to the Republican party. And likewise, Republicans having switched to the Democrat party. I look forward with enthusiasm to your reply.

blah blah Strawman... Moving the Goalposts... Appeal to Authority.....weeeeeeee, I can play this too.

Regardless of your fallacies, none can hide that you're a patronizing racist in that proof pudding.

Laterz, your boring babbling, well, it's boring me a lot?

Oh, and don't fergit ta tell thayum RepubRednecks that thayum Dem-Oh-crat statues honoring racist Confederates has gots ta come down, k?

We gots this, broski, we's gonna get darkie on yer side yet.

Night.

"That's irrelevant. People can support things that are not currently legal. If they actually supported slavery I'm sure they would say it. "

It's not irrelevant. Not if there's no benefit to owning slaves and more to be lost. Democrats found out there was more to be gained by securing the political power from the votes of blacks. Racist Dixicrats like LBJ boosted this with his "Great Society" social programs and his influence in the South with Racist Dixiecrats, but the groundwork for it was laid as early as the 30s and 40s under FDR's "New Deal" benfits.

The slavery stopped after the civil war enforced the emancipation proclamation and Republicans pushed to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Ammenmdnets after the war, which Democrats mostly fought against. Just coincidence?

The push back by Democrats to this was starting the Klan to keep blacks from the voting polls after the above-mentioned voting acts were passed. Republicans then started escorting blacks to the polls to ensure their safety. This is history, not stuff that's being made up on the fly.

"Yes, Republicans 150 years ago were"

Yes, it was 150 yrs ago. That's when slavery existed. When were they supposed to end slavery, when it didn't exist? The Republican party was originally the whig party. That party broke into two factions over the issue of slavery. The faction that was against slavery formed what we now know today as the Republican party.

"Are you saying black people are easily exploited?"

I'm saying the shift of blacks voting for the Democrats in large numbers occurred in the 30s and 40s because of FDR's new deal benefits, and poor blacks having just come through the depression jumped on board, not because of them perceiving Democrats to be the party of "Civil Rights"

If you're going to try to make the case that the parties " Switched sides " - The common liberal narrative - Where is the direct historical evidence of large swaths of racist Dixiecrats becoming Republicans? Or slave freeing Republicans becoming Democrats? There is none. And if the shift of blacks voting for Democrats has to do with race. Why did this occur in the 30s and 40s under FDR's "New Deal " and not during the civil rights era? Because race isn't what the shift was about.

Back then yup they were easily exploited

All 42 of them?

All 42 of them? You mean all 42 of the KKK?

Well yeah that's kinda the point. It's such an insignificant, and blown out of proportion issue. I'm interested in the inconsistently applied logic behind destroying cultural symbols and heritage.

exactly. the most racist ppl I know are all democrat

Germany didn't really exist after WW2. It was destroyed, occupied, ruled and rebuilt by outside governments. Also not my country/heritage not my choice. But I would find it tasteless. But if a German veteran or their descendents were proud of their service In the war, I would understand that.

Hey don't get me wrong. I do think that the Democrat are anti-american, they should be removed from power and their history erased. Just like Hitler

Me. It's right up there /\ /\.

I'm joking. Kinda

Really? You mean the confederate statues being torn down, the busts of Lincoln being destroyed, the mural of George Washington to be painted over or otherwise destroyed, university and other buildings being renamed to something besides the names of the people who paid for those buildings to be constructed... those aren't attempts to erase history?

Okay, so that's your argument for the confederate statues, are you just going to ignore the rest?

Every opportunity you get to make it about you. narcissism and pedo are common symptoms

Tear it down, destroy it. It's a symbol of hate.

The meaning of symbols is not objective. We can all decide what symbols mean to us, but not what they mean to the person using them. To some of us that flag is a symbol of hate, to others a symbol of heritage. Who gets to choose? You mentioned Germany. The Nazis did not invent the swastika (I feel certain that you know this, because while we do disagree about some things I respect you as an educated person). Who gets to decide what that symbol means? Are rainbows a bridge to Asgard, or a banner for a Wagnerian homosexual dance party? See what I mean?

The only people claiming democrats are not racists are the pathetically, horribly stupid that neither lived through, or studied recent history.

These are the same people who refuse to recognize democrats like Robert Byrd were members of the KKK. The same people that refuse to explain why the current field of democrat presidential-wanna-bes are mostly rich and white.

Scratch a liberal and you WILL find a racist - a true, hardcore racist - each and every time.

Wiener and bill Clinton, both rapists. And Joe Biden seems like one too.

And Obama isn't non white, he's half white.

Time out! Can we take a moment to appreciate a typo? "Democrats are rapist?" A freudian slip? Nah, but funny nonetheless.

Alright, resume arguing.

Pathetically easy to do.

1. Why didn't democrats advance a person of color to run for president? After all, the candidates are not self-funding the campaign. It's like democrats believe there are no middle-class, competent minorities out there in all of America. That's racist. It's called the soft racism of low expectations.

2. You support the institutional racism of the democratic party, as I just outlined it. No, you don't get to define it as you see fit. We are dealing in reality, not delusion.

3. Therefore, because of your support of this institutional racism - YOU are a racist. If you issue a public condemnation of the democratic party institutional racism, then you will not longer be a racist.

PERIOD. END OF STORY. FULL STOP.

Asked and answered SPECIFICALLY.

YOU. ARE. A. F**KING. RACIST.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. That's the one step you will never, ever take. It's not possible for you to renounce the democrat party, because it's the only political party that indulges your insane delusions. There simply is no other political home for you, or anyone else this stupid and insane.

Now go be f**king stupid, insane and racist somewhere else.

holy shit. first calling people "fascist", now calling people "racist". typical liberal

Thank you for proving me right.

You had a golden opportunity to condemn racism, and you took a hard pass.

YOU are a racist, just as I said.

I don't kowtow to f**king racists... I condemn them.

You know... as you are completely incapable of doing.

Go be a f**king racist somewhere else.

If we could block them from voting GOP, we would, but unfortunately the democrats haven't completely obliterated the voting system yet.

This is what's known in logic as guilt by association fallacy.

Wait? You mean all democrats aren't rapists because Bill was a rapist?

just having fun with the typo.