Originally posted by Tony Kania: I am not your enemy. If you want to know where I stand, I ALWAYS will answer. Those on the left rarely do. I believe that you misunderstood my written words. Liberals RARELY answer questions posted towards them. RARELY do THEY follow directions. I admitted nothing, yet your assumption clouded facts?
Come on now, you are using Eric as a gauge? Bwahaha! You got us. Damn Republicans. Bwahaha!
Edit: Thank you for commenting. Incorrectly, but thank you.
I already gave Williegoat a reason why he *may* not be getting responses here. Most people try to avoid conflict if they are in the minority as they aren't going to change anyone's mind on something like politics or religion.
"...if it was truly needed ." That's a tough call. Who would you trust to make it for you? As we get older, it probably becomes a little more difficult to be convinced to go die on some foreign soil... but we're all different I suppose in our interpretation of what's "needed". I suspect we'd all be far more willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if our home and native land was being invaded.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Who says I wouldn't be making that choice myself? No one wants to die, I'm just saying that if the situation presented itself, and I knew my sacrifice would save other lives or it was imperative to the success of this nation, I wouldn't hesitate.
Todd, are you not old enough to be aware of the draft?
I had an interesting conversation with a client in H. R. A few months ago.
She claimed the real reason so many grunt-level jobs now require a degree has nothing to do with proving ability to learn or tenacity at something.
It is to weed out "undesirable candidates" (meaning right wing). They see it as if you have been through 4 years plus of indoctrination there is a very good chance you are a liberal /leftist. They don't want to hire anyone who might cause conflict in the workplace.
Sorry, but not buying the 'switched sides' statement, unless you are referencing 'based on accepted norms of the day'.
The switched sides argument is Leftist b/s propaganda.
You need to bone up on history.
Nothing to "buy". It's a fact. Between the 1860s and the late 1930s, the Repubs took on the Dems ideals and vice versa. I'm not "leftist". I think I covered that in a previous post. Thanks.
Nothing to "buy". It's a fact. Between the 1860s and the late 1930s, the Repubs took on the Dems ideals and vice versa.
Which is of course why the NSDAP, National SOCIALISTISCHE Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (a/k/a "Nazis"), admitted that they used the Southern Democrat's "Jim Crow Laws" as a model for their anti-Jewish laws as they came to power in the late 1930s.....The SAME Jim Crow Laws that Southern Democrats enforced until 1965
The difference between the Nazis and the Democrats was that Democrats, (even until the late 1960's) said that "ONE DROP of negro blood made someone a negro"....The Nazis actually refused to be that extreme with respect to Jews!
It's also why the Southern Democrats started the KLU KLUX KLAN after 1866 and opposed reconstruction for the next 40 years and why Congressional Democrats like Robert "KKK" Byrd of West Virginia wrote a letter to the group's Imperial Wizard in 1946 stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." and why he defended his ongoing KKK membership during his 1958 Senate campaign.
It's also why Southern Democrats, ("Dixiecrats"), passed widespread SEGREGATION LAWS in the 1930s across the South in addition to their existing Jim Crow Laws and why Democrat segregationists like Alabama Governor, George Wallace held out until the Federal government sent in the military in 1963 to force Democrats to desegregate schools according to federal law.
It's also why the Democrats filibustered for a record fifty seven days AGAINST the 1964 civil rights act that was eventually passed by a majority of Republicans.
Shall we go on or do you need more FACTS?
Nobody "switched ideologies".
It's simply that more uneducated people started believing more Leftist propaganda.
..........
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
You need to bone up on history.
You should take his advice.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-02-2020).]
Nothing to "buy". It's a fact. Between the 1860s and the late 1930s, the Repubs took on the Dems ideals and vice versa. I'm not "leftist". I think I covered that in a previous post. Thanks.
Sorry MonkeyMan, this is myth.
Al Gore's father was a Dem Senator, and voted against the Civil Rights Act.
Prescott Bush was a Republican Senator and voted for it.
Robert Byrd, no comment.
Margaret Sanger, created planned parenthood, was a huge proponent of eugenics.
FDR, Democrats today are as liberal and progressive as he was then.
This whole switched sides thing is totally ridiculous, and was only perpetuated because Democrats are embarrassed about their history.
Look at this on its face and recognize how absurd that argument is.
Nothing to "buy". It's a fact. Between the 1860s and the late 1930s, the Repubs took on the Dems ideals and vice versa. I'm not "leftist". I think I covered that in a previous post. Thanks.
So how do you explain the Democrats having active KKK members in their party into the 1990's? Some would say longer.
The KKK has always had the same ideals, and was founded by Democrats.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The Republicans abolished the Democrat instituted draft in 1972. What's the point you're making?
Not long after the draft was abolished in 1972 I dropped out of college and joined the Army.
Partly because the United States Army came on campus looking for me and other people like me. I already spoke 3 languages fluently and they were looking for people for military intelligence work and eventual U.S. State Department, and "alphabet agency" jobs, and partly because I was paying my own way through college and realized that the military, (and VA afterwards), could help me pay for that. I was able to finish my Bachelors Degree and my Masters Degree with zero debt and I received a lot of very cool education from the United States government that is still not available to anyone without a fairly high security clearance.
One of the best decisions I've made in life.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-03-2020).]
Nothing to "buy". It's a fact. Between the 1860s and the late 1930s, the Repubs took on the Dems ideals and vice versa. I'm not "leftist". I think I covered that in a previous post. Thanks.
and I received a lot of very cool education from the United States government that is still not available to anyone without a fairy high security clearance.
faux pas abound.......
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-03-2020).]
When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth--that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called "switch" of the parties.
This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.
The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.
Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total. In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line. In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats' 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.
Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.
Eisenhower was a phenomenally popular war hero when he was elected in 1952, and even though only one Republican had ever before won any southern states in the Electoral College (Herbert Hoover in 1928), Eisenhower began to make inroads for the Republican Party; winning Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. In his landslide victory four years later, Eisenhower picked up Louisiana and Kentucky.
His personal appeal, though, didn't transcend the Democratic Party's hold on the South, and when he left office in 1961, that hold was arguably stronger than it had been in decades. As Southern Democrats clung to traditional segregation, though, the rest of the country was changing, and the push for civil rights had begun.
After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.
In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.
Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.
Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.
If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.
The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.
In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.
In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.
So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?
It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously exploiting the innate racism of white southern voters.
Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?
Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.
The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).
The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.
It would not be the last time they used it.
Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."
With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.
Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--George Wallace, who ran on the American Independent ticket and won five states and 46 electoral votes.
It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?
Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.
After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.
All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.
Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.
Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?
The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.
Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.
Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.
Comments Dan O'Donnell DAN O'DONNELL Common Sense Central is edited by WISN's Dan O'Donnell. Dan provides unique conservative commentary and analysis of stories that the mainstream media often overlooks. Read more Contact Call 414-799-1130
Why is it that the southern states keep decrying "It's heritage, not hate!" when it comes to celebrating the confederacy? Why is it argued (from modern southerners) that the civil war was over states rights and not slavery? Wouldn't the antithesis of that be a larger federal government of the north and their republicans?
It's a lot more complicated than "Republicans good, democrats bad!"
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 02-03-2020).]
I absolutely LOVE debating about the mindless bullshit myth that Leftists like to call "The Southern Strategy" !!
Would you like to start with a discussion of Gerard Alexander's fantastically well documented book: “The Myth of the Racist Republicans“?
If not, perhaps we can start with Sean Trende's much shorter column in Real Clear Politics, titled: “Southern Whites’ Shift to GOP Predates the ’60s.”
Hell, we can even discuss the facts contained in Kevin Williamson's article on NRO: "Desegregation before Brown"
Maybe you prefer the Leftist "newspaper of record", the New York Times? Let's go over the facts and observations from Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin: "The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy"....(of course we will have to reference their actual work that's mentioned in the NYT article....)
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-03-2020).]
I absolutely LOVE debating about the mindless bullshit myth that Leftists like to call "The Southern Strategy" !!
Mindless bullshit myth, eh? I'll play And it seems like you just googled "Southern Strategy False" and clicked the top links to spam with a gish gollop. . . Proof is below.
quote
Would you like to start with a discussion of Gerard Alexander's fantastically well documented book: “The Myth of the Racist Republicans“?
Perhaps your issue is that you're not actually reading for comprehension?
But one of his opening paragraphs:
quote
Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters.
.
Kinda blows the whole "It's a bullshit myth" out of the water when the first link you post admits to it then spends the rest of it proving my other statement that "it's a lot more complicated. . ."
Alexander spends the rest of the essay basically ignoring quantitative evidence that doesn't help his argument by simply saying it's "not persuasive", notably the electoral college. One of his biggest failures is that of isolating George Wallaces blatant racism and demanding to look at his policies in a vacuum. This election was the same year MLK was assassinated and both the republican AND democrat ticket of that year (Nixon and Humphrey) both stated they would keep forward with the civil rights movement yet 1968, the southern states broke away from the democrats and voted for Wallace who was a staunch segregationist. . .Gee. . .
He also fails to see the dichotomy his arguments pose to themselves. He argues that both racists of that era were an extreme (minority position) and that extremists will vote for the 'lesser of two evils' regardless. He also argues that the GOP only had slightly more to offer over the democrats.
He spends the last of the argument separating the south into two regions and arguing that educated southerners joined the republican party first. . .it took a lot longer for those "deep south" as he calls it (and presumably uneducated) areas to join the GOP.
quote
If not, perhaps we can start with Sean Trende's much shorter column in Real Clear Politics, titled: “Southern Whites’ Shift to GOP Predates the ’60s.”
Trende completely misses the timeline in his argument. He takes credit in 1952 for Eisenhower suggesting that Eisenhower "barely" lost in the deep south. He still lost and the biggest issue with that is that it ignores the electoral map of Eisenhowers opponent; Stevenson. Let me help you out:
So while Eisenhower went on to sign the Civil Rights Act in 1957, Stevenson "urged the government to "proceed gradually" on school desegregation in deference to the South's long-held "traditions."
From Stevensons companion:
quote
He thought of all Negroes as being loveable old family retainers and not as individuals like you and me who were longing to get educated and who had aspirations and dreams just like the rest of us.
And continuing, Trende even admits the majority political science opinions is that white southern democrats jumped ship during this "southern strategy" period.
quote
Hell, we can even discuss the facts contained in Kevin Williamson's article on NRO: "Desegregation before Brown"
Again, completely missing the timeline. Warren also pushed for universal health care and would be run out of the modern day republicans party with torches and pitchforks.
quote
Maybe you prefer the Leftist "newspaper of record", the New York Times? Let's go over the facts and observations from Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin: "The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy"....(of course we will have to reference their actual work that's mentioned in the NYT article....)
LoL - To my previous point, it really seems like you googled what you wanted to find and threw it against the wall with no understanding. The article you reference is a REVIEW of Johnstons and Shafers book written by Clay Risen. Johnstons and Shafers book isn't called "The Myth of 'the Southern Strategy" but rather, "The End of Southern Exceptionalism": https://www.amazon.com/End-...ostwar/dp/0674032497
It's also behind a NYT paywall so I'd be hard pressed to think you actually paid for it either.
Again, and I'll re-iterate that the history is a lot more complicated than "Democrats = bad, republicans = good". Is that a threatening statement to you?
