Why I will never vote for most Republicans, and will occasionally vote for Democrats

[LimitedGovernment]

Two things: Rights and Research

Republicans are horrible with respect to both.


The Rachel Maddow Show outlines a little bit of just how adamant the GOP is on attacking vulnerable targets (minorities including gays, women, and low-income families) behind the scenes - and then refusing to talk about it

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47381091

Half of it seems to be that the GOP members refuse to look at the research data on crucial subjects (e.g. teen pregnancy, sex ed, bullying, adoption)

The other half seems to be a personal distaste for people who are unlike them



The only way that a movement for limited government will succeed in the long run is by purposely distancing themselves from these GOP policies and members, and identifying themselves by a different name. There needs to be a "party within the party" - and it obviously shouldn't go by "the TEA Party". The name needs to clearly define what its members stand for - not just against. "Liberty" is too vague and misunderstood by the casual voter.

"The EARNEST Party - Equality and Accountability in Republicans' New Endeavors for Security and Trade" ?

 

[CaptUSA]

As someone who believes that economics is not an invention of man, but a manifestation of nature, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone who refuses to accept natural law. Anyone who believes that they can create a better world if human nature in economics is eliminated, cannot possibly grasp the role of government.

Therefore, even though Democrats may "talk" a better game on social issues, I highly doubt I'll ever be able to vote for one.

I'd like to see a place for the free market in the Democratic party, but I don't think there's room. If you think Ron Paul has a hard time in his party, you haven't seen anything compared to what a libertarian would receive in team blue.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

As someone who believes that economics is not an invention of man, but a manifestation of nature, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone who refuses to accept natural law. Anyone who believes that they can create a better world if human nature in economics is eliminated, cannot possibly grasp the role of government.

Therefore, even though Democrats may "talk" a better game on social issues, I highly doubt I'll ever be able to vote for one.

I'd like to see a place for the free market in the Democratic party, but I don't think there's room. If you think Ron Paul has a hard time in his party, you haven't seen anything compared to what a libertarian would receive in team blue.

I don't think that's right. I see in libertarianism some of the best of both parties - fiscal issues on the "red" side and social issues on the "blue" side. Honestly, I'm happier to see the "blue" win if those are my only options, because I'd rather have a financial collapse than have a system that spies on, controls, and discriminates against its people. Obviously, Obama is doing both, but so would Romney (and would have McCain). The thing is that the Dems overall are on the side of science and individual rights, while the Reps are on the side of tradition and corporate rights. Yes, I recognize that corporations are just groups of people - but they allocate power to the hands of a small handful.

The difference isn't just in talk. Look at any Dem/Rep state legislature and the bills that they pass and the difference is clear.

This is why I tend to vote Republican at my county level and Democratic at the national level. The Reps are, overall, good with money and the Dems are, overall, good with research, rights, and culture.

I want a party that is all of those things.

 

[_b_]

LG, I have to disagree with you on your assessment of the two parties. They both are antithetical to freedom in nearly every respect. Sure, they put up slightly different facades, but when considering the implications of their policy preferences you'll find that both parties want to subjugate individuals. The only differences are the excuses they use to justify their exercise of force over us; at the end of they day they are both telling us what to do with the threat of legalized violence to back it up.

CaptUSA, I like your take on economics and natural law. Economics is the action of men, not the invention of. +rep for you

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I didn't say that the national platforms aren't full of bad stuff on both sides. In fact, I made a point to say that they're especially bad on a presidential level. All that I said is that if I had to choose between Dems and Reps at many levels of govt, it'd be the Dems.

Similarly, if I didn't know either of the candidates very well and felt like I had to make a choice (i.e. the position that many voting Americans find themselves in), I'd go for the Dems. In order for the limited government movements to be more successful, they need to carve out a special political space in and outside of the parties - one that the everyday American can easily recognize.

That was my point.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Edit: Weird posting magic made a double-post.

 

[PierzStyx]

I don't think that's right. I see in libertarianism some of the best of both parties - fiscal issues on the "red" side and social issues on the "blue" side. Honestly, I'm happier to see the "blue" win if those are my only options, because I'd rather have a financial collapse than have a system that spies on, controls, and discriminates against its people. Obviously, Obama is doing both, but so would Romney (and would have McCain). The thing is that the Dems overall are on the side of science and individual rights, while the Reps are on the side of tradition and corporate rights. Yes, I recognize that corporations are just groups of people - but they allocate power to the hands of a small handful.

The difference isn't just in talk. Look at any Dem/Rep state legislature and the bills that they pass and the difference is clear.

This is why I tend to vote Republican at my county level and Democratic at the national level. The Reps are, overall, good with money and the Dems are, overall, good with research, rights, and culture.

I want a party that is all of those things.

The Dems are no more on the side of individual rights than The Repubs are. They're both fascists in teh truest sense of teh word. Look at Obama. He is everything that was bad about Bush-and worse.

 

[PierzStyx]

I didn't say that the national platforms are full of bad stuff on both sides. In fact, I made a point to say that they're especially bad on a presidential level. All that I said is that if I had to choose between Dems and Reps at many levels of govt, it'd be the Dems.

Similarly, if I didn't know either of the candidates very well and felt like I had to make a choice (i.e. the position that many voting Americans find themselves in), I'd go for the Dems. In order for the limited government movements to be more successful, they need to carve out a special political space in and outside of the parties - one that the everyday American can easily recognize.

That was my point.

Go look at California. The Dems have controlled that state for decades now. And they have raised taxes astronomically, limited personal rights severely, and bankrupted the system. They are no better that the Repubs. In fact places like Idaho and Utah which have drastically higher percentages of Repubs in their states leadership positions have better economies, better respect for rights, and the people are freer. California is on the literal verge of collapse because of the liberals while the red states are doing better in general by far. I find it ironic that your name is "LimitedGovernment" yet you're endorsing the most intrusive fascist party out there. Everything bad the Repubs are doping the Dems started.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Go look at California. The Dems have controlled that state for decades now. And they have raised taxes astronomically, limited personal rights severely, and bankrupted the system. They are no better that the Repubs. In fact places like Idaho and Utah which have drastically higher percentages of Repubs in their states leadership positions have better economies, better respect for rights, and the people are freer. California is on the literal verge of collapse because of the liberals while the red states are doing better in general by far. I find it ironic that your name is "LimitedGovernment" yet you're endorsing the most intrusive fascist party out there. Everything bad the Repubs are doping the Dems started.

I think you need to re-read my posts. I'm not endorsing anyone. I'm saying that the contemporary Republican party is banking on being "anti-minority" and somewhat more fiscally responsible, which turns people away. I'm saying that limited government candidates need a clear, public brand that separates them from that pack; the same way that they need to be separate from the Democratic party's crazy spending and overregulation image.

Also, "better respect for rights" depends on whose rights you're talking about.

 

[Revolution9]

I think you need to re-read my posts. I'm not endorsing anyone. I'm saying that the contemporary Republican party is banking on being "anti-minority" and somewhat more fiscally responsible, which turns people away. I'm saying that limited government candidates need a clear, public brand that separates them from that pack.

Also, "better respect for rights" depends on whose rights you're talking about.

There is only one set of rights. That of the individual. All the rest is a political hot button scam. And you took it hook, line and sinker.

Rev9

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think that's right. I see in libertarianism some of the best of both parties - fiscal issues on the "red" side and social issues on the "blue" side. Honestly, I'm happier to see the "blue" win if those are my only options, because I'd rather have a financial collapse than have a system that spies on, controls, and discriminates against its people. Obviously, Obama is doing both, but so would Romney (and would have McCain). The thing is that the Dems overall are on the side of science and individual rights, while the Reps are on the side of tradition and corporate rights. Yes, I recognize that corporations are just groups of people - but they allocate power to the hands of a small handful.

The difference isn't just in talk. Look at any Dem/Rep state legislature and the bills that they pass and the difference is clear.

This is why I tend to vote Republican at my county level and Democratic at the national level. The Reps are, overall, good with money and the Dems are, overall, good with research, rights, and culture.

I want a party that is all of those things.

OH bullshit, the Democratic Party is not what you describe at all. How do you explain the NDAA or this? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323191

The Democratic Party isn't for individual rights, most of them are Socialists and Marxists. The Republican Party as a whole has been supporting corporatism and fascist legislation like the Patriot Act. Yes, the Democratic Party railed against it during Bush's term, but when they were in power did they overrule it? Hell no, they didn't. They voted to continue it. The Democrats griped about the Iraq war, but then their "peace president" doubled up on Afghanistan and attacked Libya. The neocons (former Trotyskyite Democrats) loved Obama for that.

There is little difference between the parties at the top. They may have different rhetoric, but they largely support the same things. Both want more and more government.

Go look at the major donors to Obama and Romney's campaign and then come back and tell me how different they are.

Note: And I have 0 idea what you are talking about with this.... ""The EARNEST Party - Equality and Accountability in Republicans' New Endeavors for Security and Trade" ?"

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I think this thread is becoming a net for catching all of the people who don't respond to the intent of original posts - much less read them carefully.

Edit: Anyone needing a clarification, please read the statements below in order to help interpret the first post.


I tend to vote Democratic because the Republican party, while good on some things, tends to also be horrible on social issues. The general perception of Republicans among casual voters is that they are the party of "old white men who are trying to get rich and take power away from everyone else". To gain new supporters, limited government candidates need to establish a different identity/public perception within the Republican party and a name that communicates it. I suggested EARNEST - as in "I'm an EARNEST Republican".


I also think that we need a limited government movement within the Democratic party.

 

[hillertexas]

Two things: Rights and Research Republicans are horrible with respect to both.
The Rachel Maddow Show outlines a little bit of just how adamant the GOP is on attacking vulnerable targets (minorities including gays, women, and low-income families) behind the scenes - and then refusing to talk about it. Half of it seems to be that the GOP members refuse to look at the research data on crucial subjects (e.g. teen pregnancy, sex ed, bullying, adoption) The other half seems to be a personal distaste for people who are unlike them

I tend to vote Democratic because the Republican party, while good on some things, tends to also be horrible on social issues. The general perception of Republicans among casual voters is that they are the party of "old white men who are trying to get rich and take power away from everyone else".

Limited Government, I fear you have been misled...

Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (now deceased), is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Explicit Democrat support was given to the causes of the Jim Crow laws... The era of Jim Crow laws was governed by southern Democrats like Alabama governor George Wallace and Mississippi senator Jim Eastland.

It was DEMOCRATS that institutionalized slavery.
It was DEMOCRATS who commissioned medical professionals to proclaim that "excessive amounts of carbon in the bodies of Negroes" was the reason for their skin color and inferiority. (why do they still have a problem with the benign element Carbon)
It was DEMOCRATS that did not like the 1860 election of abolitionist REPUBLICAN Lincoln.
It was DEMOCRATS that seceded from the Union before he was even sworn in.
.
It was DEMOCRATS that formed their own army, the KKK. REPUBLICANS were hanged by the hundreds right alongside the Negroes, usually in the same tree. It was DEMOCRATS that set up Jim Crow laws in the South to further subjugate the Negroes.

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that so admired the Progressive movement's Margret Sanger's eugenics research (number of black babies aborted far exceeds those of other demographics)

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that re-segregated the military after it had been fully integrated by the Republicans in the 1870s.

A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans.

It was DEMOCRATS that blocked three attempts during the Eisenhower Administration for comprehensive civil-rights

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

sidebar: "A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party."

 

[Todd]

meh.

until recently, I've always been the opposite of the OP.

Now I dont give much credibility to either

 

[NoOneButPaul]

We are Ron Paul Republicans.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think this thread is becoming a net for catching all of the people who don't respond to the intent of original posts - much less read them carefully.

Edit: Anyone needing a clarification, please read the statements below in order to help interpret the first post.


I tend to vote Democratic because the Republican party, while good on some things, tends to also be horrible on social issues. The general perception of Republicans among casual voters is that they are the party of "old white men who are trying to get rich and take power away from everyone else". To gain new supporters, limited government candidates need to establish a different identity/public perception within the Republican party and a name that communicates it. I suggested EARNEST - as in "I'm an EARNEST Republican".


I also think that we need a limited government movement within the Democratic party.

Oh, people read it. You just made no sense.

 

[Elwar]

Two things: Rights and Research

Republicans are horrible with respect to both.


The Rachel Maddow

You had me until this.

 

[Origanalist]

I didn't say that the national platforms are full of bad stuff on both sides. In fact, I made a point to say that they're especially bad on a presidential level. All that I said is that if I had to choose between Dems and Reps at many levels of govt, it'd be the Dems.

Similarly, if I didn't know either of the candidates very well and felt like I had to make a choice (i.e. the position that many voting Americans find themselves in), I'd go for the Dems. In order for the limited government movements to be more successful, they need to carve out a special political space in and outside of the parties - one that the everyday American can easily recognize.

That was my point.

Well, basically I say a pox on both their houses. However, we're having a revolution in the republican party, and there's a reason for that. To state that the ultra mega state democrats are preferable in any way is ridiculous.

 

[Champ]

You're not going to get a lot of enthusiasm for either party on these forums, as that is exactly what we are here to fight against. The single American party known as the establishment. The Democratic vs. Republican fight currently going on in America is an illusion. I'm sure many RP supporters began their political life as either a Democrat or Republican or some variation of the two and disliked the opposing side, but once they saw how both of these parties ultimately voted and worked in action, they were put off and felt cheated. I know I was.

We are here, supporting Ron Paul, fighting against the establishment, which consists primarily of both Democrats and Republicans. I think one of Ron Paul's goals is to restore the Republican party to something it once was and currently pretends to be. Limited government, individual freedoms and liberty, and sound economic policy. Short of that, who knows what will happen in the future, but you can be sure we are going to fight the establishment until we feel liberty has been restored.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Limited Government, I fear you have been misled...

Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (now deceased), is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
Democrat Senator 1964 – Senator Al Gore Sr. votes against Civil Rights Act.

Explicit Democrat support was given to the causes of the Jim Crow laws... The era of Jim Crow laws was governed by southern Democrats like Alabama governor George Wallace and Mississippi senator Jim Eastland.

It was DEMOCRATS that institutionalized slavery.
It was DEMOCRATS who commissioned medical professionals to proclaim that "excessive amounts of carbon in the bodies of Negroes" was the reason for their skin color and inferiority. (why do they still have a problem with the benign element Carbon)
It was DEMOCRATS that did not like the 1860 election of abolitionist REPUBLICAN Lincoln.
It was DEMOCRATS that seceded from the Union before he was even sworn in.
.
It was DEMOCRATS that formed their own army, the KKK. REPUBLICANS were hanged by the hundreds right alongside the Negroes, usually in the same tree. It was DEMOCRATS that set up Jim Crow laws in the South to further subjugate the Negroes.

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that so admired the Progressive movement's Margret Sanger's eugenics research (number of black babies aborted far exceeds those of other demographics)

It was also DEMOCRAT President Wilson that re-segregated the military after it had been fully integrated by the Republicans in the 1870s.

A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans.

It was DEMOCRATS that blocked three attempts during the Eisenhower Administration for comprehensive civil-rights

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades, especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries. But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend, which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's "white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially unconstitutional.

sidebar: "A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's vision of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party."

Most of those are true but the bold one isn't completely correct:

In 1922, Truman gave a friend $10 for an initiation fee for the Ku Klux Klan, but later asked to get his money back; he was never initiated, never attended a meeting, and never claimed membership. Though Truman at times expressed anger towards Jews in his diaries, his business partner and close friend Edward Jacobson was Jewish.Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, to back civil rights initiatives and require equal opportunity in the armed forces.

Edit: The Al Gore, Sr thing isn't exactly true either:

Gore was one of only three Democratic senators from the 11 former Confederate states who did not sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing integration, the other two being Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not asked to sign) and Gore's fellow Tennessean Estes Kefauver, who refused to sign. South Carolina Senator J. Strom Thurmond tried to get Gore to sign the Southern Manifesto, Gore refused. Gore could not, however, be regarded as an out-and-out integrationist, having voted against some major civil rights legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He did support the Voting Rights Act of 1965