# Blacks and the GOP **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057 "2010-06-13T22:53:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/241 "2010-06-21T19:10:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > But otherwise, he really respects the _hell_ outta black folks! “Some of the best Negroes are our friends.” - Phil Ochs ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/242 "2010-06-21T19:52:50Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Historically, for about a hundred years the Republicans were the \*\*pro-\*\*black party, in a sense. > > Then some high-ranking Democrats pushed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed it, and anti-integrationists left the Democratic Party in droves. The political balance on racial issues between the two parties was effectively reversed. Actually, even in 1964 and 1965, it was Republicans!!! who were OVERwelmingly (80%) in favor of ensuring the rights of black people. It also was Republcans who broke the Democrat fillibuster when the Democrats tried everything to prevent blacks from getting their rights. It has ALWAYS!!! been the Republicans (not the Democrats) who made sure that blacks got rights…consistently, and overwelmingly. > **[black-and-right.com](http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/)** > > This domain may be for sale! The Democrat Race Lie ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/243 "2010-06-21T19:54:55Z")
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post Lets look at the history of the party of Lincoln: First black Republican Senator: Hiram Rhodes Revels – 1870 First black Democrat Senator: Carol Moseley Braun – 1993 There have been 3 black Senators in each party and it was 123 years between the first black Republican Senator and the first black Democrat Senator. First 22 Black Congressman were all Republicans starting in 1868 and going to 1935 That’s 67 years of political office after the civil war without a single black Democratic politician. > [@acsenray](#): > > And what happened after those 67 years, perfesser? More of the same. The Republicans continued to be the party that ensured rights to black people. > **[black-and-right.com](http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/)** > > This domain may be for sale! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/244 "2010-06-21T20:14:26Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > The Republicans continued to be the party that ensured rights to black people. > > [http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/](http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/) As long as you type that in the past tense, it’s not totally inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/245 "2010-06-21T20:32:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The hypocrisy of one party using the race card is lost on it’s constituents when it harbors the exact condition that warrants such an accusation. That there is a group within the party that openly supports causes based on race and excludes other races from joining is precisely what the GOP rejected in support of David Duke. When you are in office you are suppose to represent all your constituents and not one race. > > I had no idea of the number prior to this thread. I looked it up on internet to just like you did so don’t feign surprise that I can add a number to the existence of a commonly known caucus. > > I don’t think you’re trying to call me a racist. I understand that you think I’m not aware of how African Americans feel about politics. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Your collective vote was bought and paid for with a phone call is held together with a divisive lie and the overt approval of a caucus based on race. The idea of promoting policy based on race is inconceivable to me. > > Lets look at the history of the party of Lincoln: > > First black Republican Senator: Hiram Rhodes Revels – 1870 > First black Democrat Senator: Carol Moseley Braun – 1993 > There have been 3 black Senators in each party and it was 123 years between the first black Republican Senator and the first black Democrat Senator. > > First 22 Black Congressman were all Republicans starting in 1868 and going to 1935 > That’s 67 years of political office after the civil war without a single black Democratic politician. **Magiver** , a number of posters in this thread have tried to answer the legitimate questions you’ve had, and I admit you have had a few, as to why African Americans believe the GOP to be the contemporary home of anti black racism. However, no matter what anyone says, you continue to justify your personal, outsider’s assertion that blacks’ perceptions of racism as a tool in today’s GOP political arsenal makes no sense, which wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for your continuing reference to the GOP of 50 years ago to make your case, and seeming refusal to acknowledge the GOP’s embrace of the Southern Strategy post the civil rights act of the '60s, and its continued employment of similar tactics today expressed by its proxies in conservative media. Blacks, by and large, believe the GOP will harm them given the opportunity, and is, if not controlled by then definitely accepting of a strong, anti black, anti Hispanic, racist element. I’ll go a little further. As a racial minority, the GOP scares the bejesus out of me, and I think the main reason a black person would ever be a member of the party is hatred of self. Oh, there are certainly Blacks who, knowing and understanding the party would, seemingly against their better interests, join the GOP, such as opportunists committed to self-relevance at any cost, as in Michael Steele’s case, or those who are simply freaking nuts, as in Alan Keyes’ case, but they, along with Shelby Steele, Clarence Thomas, and others… are considered self-hating black men. After this thread I hope to never hear (or read) the words ‘dog whistle’ again (sorry **Stuffy** my man, but you kind of over-did it, and even confused me after a while), but the fact remains, coded terms, such as ‘states rights’, ‘welfare’, ‘urban’, etc… continue to be popular among Republicans to convey certain sentiments regarding race in print and multimedia pieces and correspondent reporting, to successful effect. However, blacks are not as stupid as some would like, and one can’t, on the one hand, expect blacks to continue to knowingly be the target of tactics designed to impede their ascension to social equality and the opportunity for economic equilibrium, while on the other hand, wonder why the designers of the overall strategy are not embraced by those whose progress continues to be impeded. What matters is what the GOP represents to blacks today, and how it chooses to express itself, again, today. What the GOP was 50 years ago is no longer relevant because the GOP is not the same party it was then. You may not like it, or possibly want to comprehend it, but there it is all the same. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/246 "2010-06-21T20:55:41Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > your continuing reference to the GOP of 50 years ago to make your case, and seeming refusal to acknowledge the GOP’s embrace of the Southern Strategy post the civil rights act of the '60s, and its continued employment of similar tactics today expressed by its proxies in conservative media. > > Blacks, by and large, believe the GOP will harm them given the opportunity, > > Oh, there are certainly Blacks who, knowing and understanding the party would, seemingly against their better interests, join the GOP, > > What the GOP was 50 years ago is no longer relevant because the GOP is not the same party it was then. . The GOP has not changed one bit. The GOP is still the party that ensures the rights of blacks. The GOP is still the party that is not racist. It was true 150 years ago, it was true 50 years ago, and it is still true today. The problem all you guys have is that people dont vote forever for the party that gave them their rights. There are other reasons why people vote the way they do. Even though any educated person knows that it was the GOP who gave blacks their rights…so what? That was yesterday. What have you done for me today? There is no loyalty to what the GOP did for the blacks, first freeing them, and then over the next century giving blacks rights. It was mostly the GOP that gave blacks the right to vote and other rights, but the GOP did not tell the blacks how to vote. The bottom line is that today’s Democrats give, and propose to give, much more many more handouts, welfare, food stamps, etc. money, housing, loans, grants, services, to black people than does the GOP. It is that simple. There is no mystery here folks. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/247 "2010-06-21T20:57:47Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > There is no mystery here folks. Well, other than how you can read, write, and presumably breathe and feed yourself, and yet still think that the Republican Party hasn’t changed just a tad since 1963. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/248 "2010-06-21T21:15:41Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Originally Posted by Magiver View Post > Lets look at the history of the party of Lincoln: > > First black Republican Senator: Hiram Rhodes Revels – 1870 > First black Democrat Senator: Carol Moseley Braun – 1993 > There have been 3 black Senators in each party and it was 123 years between the first black Republican Senator and the first black Democrat Senator. > > First 22 Black Congressman were all Republicans starting in 1868 and going to 1935 > That’s 67 years of political office after the civil war without a single black Democratic politician. > More of the same. > > The Republicans continued to be the party that ensured rights to black people. > > [http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/](http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/) This is some kind of joke right? In between 1965 and today this page can only point to 4 acts that are pro civil rights, two of which are specific to Japanese Americans relating to WWII. Hey I know it’s rumored some of you can’t tell us darkies apart but come on. It then goes on to mention our conservatives favorite spank fest subject Reagan. Do you really want to have a debate on what Reagan had to say about Civil Rights? I’m almost tempted to spend some real time on this page for shits and giggles, just to see if it’s all as sorry as those four entries. I think I’ll pass. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/249 "2010-06-21T21:59:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The hypocrisy of one party using the race card is lost on it’s constituents when it harbors the exact condition that warrants such an accusation. That there is a group within the party that openly supports causes based on race and excludes other races from joining is precisely what the GOP rejected in support of David Duke. When you are in office you are suppose to represent all your constituents and not one race. Really, so all those other Caucuses in this Congress, what are they for, hmm? You do what a Caucus is for don’t you? > [@](#): > > I had no idea of the number prior to this thread. I looked it up on internet to just like you did so don’t feign surprise that I can add a number to the existence of a commonly known caucus. Really, now? I’d be way off base if I suggested it was because of the way it keeps falling out of conservative windbags mouths like some kind of bizarre form of Tourettes’? Probably my imagination, you know being black I’m easily confused. Still, and excuse my muddled thinking, but there must be some way to ascertain if such speculation is warranted. I wonder which happened last, a mainstream news media mention of the Congressional Black Caucus or a (I’m pulling a name completely outta my ass here :rolleyes: ) Rush Limbaugh mention of the Congressional Black Caucus. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you’re trying to call me a racist. I understand that you think I’m not aware of how African Americans feel about politics. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Your collective vote was bought and paid for with a phone call is held together with a divisive lie and the overt approval of a caucus based on race. The idea of promoting policy based on race is inconceivable to me. Got it, I’ve been brainwashed by an event that happened before I was born. Me no have mind of me own, me so confused. Good luck with that voter drive, I’m sure that’s a message that’s gonna resonate. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/250 "2010-06-21T22:28:55Z")
Would it help if you understood that black opposition to the GOP is not to the party itself, but to a certain type of person? Historically, there were two positions to take on all kinds of civil rights matters - for or against. Black people understand that while the types of people that were pro slavery, anti miscegenation, pro poll tax, pro jim crow, pro states rights, anti civil rights legislation, pro southern strategy, pro dog whistle politics, etc. have changed parties over time, they are still the same people with the same general philosophy. The people that use “welfare queen” to win elections today would be the people against interracial marriage in the past. And in today’s politics climate, in what party do you think the majority of these people reside? I’ll give you a hint - it is not the one that just elected a black president. So please stop thinking this is an issue of party history. History up until 1964 means NOTHING to black people in the present. And for the record, calling yourself the party of Lincoln is usually met with a snicker. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/251 "2010-06-21T23:11:21Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > And for the record, calling yourself the party of Lincoln is usually met with a snicker. Actually, it’s usually met with a :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/252 "2010-06-21T23:28:12Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > And for the record, calling yourself the party of Lincoln is usually met with a snicker. You Nebraska haters are just MEAN. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/253 "2010-06-22T01:32:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > 43 members of Congress openly segregate themselves in a political caucus that excludes other races in an effort to promote their agenda. And while we disband the Black Caucus, let’s also go after: the Asian Pacific American Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Caucus on Armenian Issues, Caucus on Hellenic Issues, Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans, Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans, Caucus for Women’s Issues, Croatian Caucus, French Caucus, Congressional Friends of Denmark, Hispanic Caucus AND Hispanic Conference (they haz 2!!!), Serbian Caucus, Ukranian Caucus, Friends of Norway, Friends of Scotland, Friends of Switzerland, Baltic Caucus, Hungarian American Caucus, Indonesia Caucus, Kenya Caucus, Military Veterans Caucus, U.S. Mongolia Friendship Caucus and the U.S. New Zealand Congressional Caucus. How dare they get together to pander to their special interests. > [@Susanann](#): > > Actually, even in 1964 and 1965, it was Republicans!!! who were OVERwelmingly (80%) in favor of ensuring the rights of black people. Let’s get the record straight. One of the 20% (your figure) who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. You may also remember him as the Republican nominee for President that year. And while the Republicans were nominating Goldwater, [2/3 of the delegates at the convention voted against a platform plank affirming the Civil Rights Act.](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/1964-republican-convention.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+smithsonianmag%2Fhistory-archaeology+%28History+%26+Archaeology%29) Instead of blathering on about “Republicans” give credit where it’s due – to Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the one Republican who wheedled, nagged, compromised and strong-armed enough of his fellow party members in the Senate to get the bill passed. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/254 "2010-06-22T01:49:55Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > History up until 1964 means NOTHING to black people in the present. Really? Slavery means nothing to black people? The civil rights laws that were backed by 80% of Republicans (versus 67% Democrat) means nothing? What has the Democratic party done for black people in the history of the United States? Seriously? JFK makes a phone call, and LBJ gets credit for the overwhelming support of Republicans for the civil rights act. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/255 "2010-06-22T01:53:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Really? Slavery means nothing to black people? The civil rights laws that were backed by 80% of Republicans (versus 67% Democrat) means nothing? > > What has the Democratic party done for black people in the history of the United States? Seriously? JFK makes a phone call, and LBJ gets credit for the overwhelming support of Republicans for the civil rights act. Nice. My comments were in the context of political history. Is this really what you got out of my post? The whole point was that party name does not matter. It is the people of the party that count. Do you understand that? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/256 "2010-06-22T01:53:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Really? Slavery means nothing to black people? The civil rights laws that were backed by 80% of Republicans (versus 67% Democrat) means nothing? > > What has the Democratic party done for black people in the history of the United States? Seriously? JFK makes a phone call, and LBJ gets credit for the overwhelming support of Republicans for the civil rights act. Nice. He certainly got the blame from anti-civil rights voters, who deserted the Democratic Party in droves, so why shouldn’t he get the credit? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/257 "2010-06-22T02:03:51Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > And while we disband the Black Caucus, let’s also go after: the Asian Pacific American Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Caucus on Armenian Issues, Caucus on Hellenic Issues, Caucus on Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Americans, Caucus on Turkey and Turkish Americans, Caucus for Women’s Issues, Croatian Caucus, French Caucus, Congressional Friends of Denmark, Hispanic Caucus AND Hispanic Conference (they haz 2!!!), Serbian Caucus, Ukranian Caucus, Friends of Norway, Friends of Scotland, Friends of Switzerland, Baltic Caucus, Hungarian American Caucus, Indonesia Caucus, Kenya Caucus, Military Veterans Caucus, U.S. Mongolia Friendship Caucus and the U.S. New Zealand Congressional Caucus. How dare they get together to pander to their special interests. > > If for no other reason than reject membership of other politicians based on race I would agree with you. > Let’s get the record straight. One of the 20% (your figure) who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. You may also remember him as the Republican nominee for President that year. > > And while the Republicans were nominating Goldwater, [2/3 of the delegates at the convention voted against a platform plank affirming the Civil Rights Act.](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/1964-republican-convention.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+smithsonianmag%2Fhistory-archaeology+%28History+%26+Archaeology%29) > > Instead of blathering on about “Republicans” give credit where it’s due – to Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the one Republican who wheedled, nagged, compromised and strong-armed enough of his fellow party members in the Senate to get the bill passed. So now the Republican vote didn’t count? That is beyond lame because it ignores the failure of the party you’re trying to defend. If you want to get the record straight then you have to go with the ACTUAL RECORD. Either LBJ was too busy to twist some arms or Democrats were too racist to actually vote for the rights of black people. That is the reality of it. Isn’t the board suppose to be about fighting ignorance? The Republican party has been there since the end of the civil war. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/258 "2010-06-22T02:05:20Z")
> [@kingbighair](#): > > My comments were in the context of political history. Is this really what you got out of my post? The whole point was that party name does not matter. It is the people of the party that count. Do you understand that? I understand that the Republican party has a better voting record. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/259 "2010-06-22T02:06:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He certainly got the blame from anti-civil rights voters, who deserted the Democratic Party in droves, so why shouldn’t he get the credit? Because it was the Republican vote that brought it home. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/260 "2010-06-22T02:25:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I understand that the Republican party has a better voting record. If you are honestly making the claim that the GOP has been more supportive in the last several generations of blacks (you know, the ones alive that vote), then you should hope the people in charge of the GOP do not share your views. If they do, your party is dead in 20 years. Since this has not been directly asked of you, I suppose I will - Do you recognize that there was a major party shift at any point in recent American political history? And if there was, do you see how constantly referring to the parties as they were before this change could maybe make your claims seem misleading? Aside from conjuring up the Congressional Black Caucus, I do not recall you bringing up any GOP achievements in the last 40 years. Do you really think present blacks give a damn about a politician in 1935? And how many black reps have come from each party in recent memory? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057.md?page=14)