Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party – If They Ever Really Were

[BS Filter]

I

Present your evidence to back up your accusation. Go ahead.

ric
These were sham investigations. In the Martin case Zimmerman refused to follow the directions of a law enforcement official who told him not to pursue Martin That was just one thing. In he Wilson murder of brown, the grand jury was denied legal information from the assistant DA pertaining to the fleeing felon statute. That's just one. You chose to ignore them. Had these two kids been white, you would not be so quick and happy to claim legitimacy of these sham decisions. But that's what republicans do. Now that's all you're going to get because I get tired of you racist pricks always asking people to prove things when your asses never do.

Here is the report from Eric Holder's Department of Justice that states that the police officer acted in self defense. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a JURY, That makes you a liar.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

There was no Eric Holders Department of Justice. In the case of Brown, they were only to determine whether Browns civil rights were violated. They were not there to determine if Wilson was innocent or guilty. In the Zimmerman case he was neighborhood watch captain and by the rules of neighborhood watch was all he was supposed to do was contact the police. After the dispatch told him not to pursue he was not supposed to pursue. He disobeyed that and continued to pursue Martin. There at many other cases that show how police get away with killing people. You have chosen to believe a set of lies.

I just gave you the link to the Federal Government Department of Justice run by Eric Holder. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury. Move along now.

And I have given you what this report was out to prove. I read that report years ago. The DOJ was only there to prove that Wilson did what he did because he was black, which could not be proven unless Wilson made racist comments specifically saying so. Now would you like to talk about Alton Sterling? Eric Garner? Samuel Dubose? Tamir Rice? John Crawford? Philando Castile? I can keep going. So shut your ass.

The report from the DOJ doesn't say anything about being black. That's your racist opinion. We're not talking about opinion or emotions here. We're dealing with facts. Move on now.

 

[katsteve2012]

Have you lost your damn mind?

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.

No need to drag me into your response.

I clearly stated in this very thread, that I don't speak for all black people.

I speak only for myself.

But YOU stated that you believe that you speak for the "vast majority" of white people.

That sounds like a "collectivist" mindset to me.

And it is actually an insult to white people who are capable of speaking for themselves.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

You just mentioned IM2 to me in your previous post.....or did you already forget that as well?

No, and that doesn't change what I said.


I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

I jumped in initially, because YOU mentioed ME, and I spoke for myself in response, which is normal.

I'm not the one complaining about it.

Just like the poll that was taken for this thread title,i general polls depending on who is taking them can be biased, or collect data from a select group, to obtain a desired result, just like numbers, polls can be manipulated as well.

So, no you don't speak for anyone that you do not really even know, nor do I.

It is arrogant to think that you do.

YOur stand against the concept of polling and communication and logical analysis is noted and laughed at.


Yes. One has to be careful with polls. If you think I was wrong in what I said, when I spoke for white people, as a group, you are welcome to try to challenge what I said, or my claim that whites as a group agree with me.

Otherwise, save your drama for some who cares.

It is a collectivist mindset to have certain beliefs regarding anything and assume that what you happen to think applies to a "vast majority" which comprises millions of people.

It would be, if I had just "assumed" as you claim. But I did not.

So, all you are doing is spouting stuff and nonsense.

And your childish "win/lose" reasoning makes you look even sillier.

LOL!!!

This is not grade school, or a contest.

This is a small part of the COntest of Ideas, and you certainly do a lot of losing.

I do not "stand against polling", you have a habit of reading into what others post here and then attempt to interpret what is stated to fit your agenda. Which is likely the reason that you get ridiculed so often and end up whining about being "smeared".

You ask for it.

What I stated is that polls can be biased and unreliable, and reading a poll or many polls does not make you a qualified spokesperson for any vast majority of any demographic.

However, I would concur that you probably do accurately speak for some of the racist, alt right loons who post here.

So there is no need for me to waste my time trying say anything sensible to you or get a point through your thick head.

I already know what you stand for.



Im not here to win or lose anything, this forum is not that important to me

But if it elevates your wounded self esteem to convince yourself that you've claimed a few petty victories here, then by all means do so.

The forum needs a few more clowns like you for levity

 

[IM2]

I

ric
These were sham investigations. In the Martin case Zimmerman refused to follow the directions of a law enforcement official who told him not to pursue Martin That was just one thing. In he Wilson murder of brown, the grand jury was denied legal information from the assistant DA pertaining to the fleeing felon statute. That's just one. You chose to ignore them. Had these two kids been white, you would not be so quick and happy to claim legitimacy of these sham decisions. But that's what republicans do. Now that's all you're going to get because I get tired of you racist pricks always asking people to prove things when your asses never do.

Here is the report from Eric Holder's Department of Justice that states that the police officer acted in self defense. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a JURY, That makes you a liar.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

There was no Eric Holders Department of Justice. In the case of Brown, they were only to determine whether Browns civil rights were violated. They were not there to determine if Wilson was innocent or guilty. In the Zimmerman case he was neighborhood watch captain and by the rules of neighborhood watch was all he was supposed to do was contact the police. After the dispatch told him not to pursue he was not supposed to pursue. He disobeyed that and continued to pursue Martin. There at many other cases that show how police get away with killing people. You have chosen to believe a set of lies.

I just gave you the link to the Federal Government Department of Justice run by Eric Holder. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury. Move along now.

And I have given you what this report was out to prove. I read that report years ago. The DOJ was only there to prove that Wilson did what he did because he was black, which could not be proven unless Wilson made racist comments specifically saying so. Now would you like to talk about Alton Sterling? Eric Garner? Samuel Dubose? Tamir Rice? John Crawford? Philando Castile? I can keep going. So shut your ass.

The report from the DOJ doesn't say anything about being black. That's your racist opinion. We're not talking about opinion or emotions here. We're dealing with facts. Move on now.

Yep and the fact is Holder explained the DJ was there to investigate if Browns civil rights were violated and not to change a decision made by local authorities. In order for Wilson be in violation of Browns civil rights it had o be proven that what he did was racially motivated. And the only way hat was going to be proven is that Wilson would be caught making racist comments during the situation. These are facts son.

 

[BS Filter]

I

Here is the report from Eric Holder's Department of Justice that states that the police officer acted in self defense. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a JURY, That makes you a liar.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

There was no Eric Holders Department of Justice. In the case of Brown, they were only to determine whether Browns civil rights were violated. They were not there to determine if Wilson was innocent or guilty. In the Zimmerman case he was neighborhood watch captain and by the rules of neighborhood watch was all he was supposed to do was contact the police. After the dispatch told him not to pursue he was not supposed to pursue. He disobeyed that and continued to pursue Martin. There at many other cases that show how police get away with killing people. You have chosen to believe a set of lies.

I just gave you the link to the Federal Government Department of Justice run by Eric Holder. Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury. Move along now.

And I have given you what this report was out to prove. I read that report years ago. The DOJ was only there to prove that Wilson did what he did because he was black, which could not be proven unless Wilson made racist comments specifically saying so. Now would you like to talk about Alton Sterling? Eric Garner? Samuel Dubose? Tamir Rice? John Crawford? Philando Castile? I can keep going. So shut your ass.

The report from the DOJ doesn't say anything about being black. That's your racist opinion. We're not talking about opinion or emotions here. We're dealing with facts. Move on now.

Yep and the fact is Holder explained the DJ was there to investigate if Browns civil rights were violated and not to change a decision made by local authorities. In order for Wilson be in violation of Browns civil rights it had o be proven that what he did was racially motivated. And the only way hat was going to be proven is that Wilson would be caught making racist comments during the situation. These are facts son.

Read the report, kid. Did Wilson violate Brown's civil rights? Well? Did Wilson make any racist comments during the situation? Well? You're full or crap.

 

[Correll]

Don't worry. He is a liberal. This flash of sanity and clear perception, is likely a passing fluke.
It depends on the issue.

I certainly can't speak for the vast majority of white people, say on, Presidential Candidates.


But there are some issues, especially if backed by polls showing massive agreement, that I can.


I don't recall exactly which issue, I told you that I spoke for the "vast majority" of white people, but I am sure that I would not say that, unless I had good reason.


And no, that's not a collectivist mindset.


THIS is a collectivist mindset, defending the idea of being angry with individuals now, because of the past, often centuries ago, actions of a group.


"you think whites can do the things they have been doing and no body has the right to be angry with them "



Note the complete lack of any attempt to limit the anger to the individuals that DID the provocation.

Indeed, IM2, angrily rejects and dismisses that idea.

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

You just mentioned IM2 to me in your previous post.....or did you already forget that as well?

No, and that doesn't change what I said.


I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

I jumped in initially, because YOU mentioed ME, and I spoke for myself in response, which is normal.

I'm not the one complaining about it.

Just like the poll that was taken for this thread title,i general polls depending on who is taking them can be biased, or collect data from a select group, to obtain a desired result, just like numbers, polls can be manipulated as well.

So, no you don't speak for anyone that you do not really even know, nor do I.

It is arrogant to think that you do.

YOur stand against the concept of polling and communication and logical analysis is noted and laughed at.


Yes. One has to be careful with polls. If you think I was wrong in what I said, when I spoke for white people, as a group, you are welcome to try to challenge what I said, or my claim that whites as a group agree with me.

Otherwise, save your drama for some who cares.

It is a collectivist mindset to have certain beliefs regarding anything and assume that what you happen to think applies to a "vast majority" which comprises millions of people.

It would be, if I had just "assumed" as you claim. But I did not.

So, all you are doing is spouting stuff and nonsense.

And your childish "win/lose" reasoning makes you look even sillier.

LOL!!!

This is not grade school, or a contest.

This is a small part of the COntest of Ideas, and you certainly do a lot of losing.

I do not "stand against polling", you have a habit of reading into what others post here and then attempt to interpret what is stated to fit your agenda. Which is likely the reason that you get ridiculed so often and end up whining about being "smeared".

You are standing against the concept of reading polls telling what a position on an issue a group holds, and taking that information to mean that the group holds that position.

That's standing against the very concept of polling.

What I stated is that polls can be biased and unreliable, and reading a poll or many polls does not make you a qualified spokesperson for any vast majority of any demographic.

At what point, when polls agree and verify each other, can you finally decide that the information is likely true?

However, I would concur that you probably do accurately speak for some of the racist, alt right loons who post here.

All you did there, was call me an asshole. You have never been able to justify that claim. SO, in return, all me to call you one. YOu are an asshole.

The difference here, is that I'm telling the truth, well you are a piece of shit liar.

So there is no need for me to waste my time trying say anything sensible to you or get a point through your thick head.

I already know what you stand for.

Says the man that admits he has no care for his credibility and is just here for entertainment purposes.


Sa

Im not here to win or lose anything, this forum is not that important to me

But if it elevates your wounded self esteem to convince yourself that you've claimed a few petty victories here, then by all means do so.

The forum needs a few more clowns like you for levity

Says the man taking a stand against the concept of polling.

 

[katsteve2012]

As usual, you're deflecting about what ypu stated by claiming "not to recall which issues, you were talking about", regarding speaking for the vast majority of white people?

It was right here in this thread. If thinking you do under any circumstances, isn't a collectivist belief,(which it is) then it is most certainly excessively arrogant.

And as far as anything that IM2 posts, he is an adult and you do not need to talk to me as if he is not present.

1. No, I don't recall the specifics of the comment you are referring to. On some issues, I feel comfortable speaking for others, if I have reason to believe that I know where they stand. Such as multiple polls showing mass agreement.


2. Neither collectivist, nor arrogant. I explained what collectivist was, in a previous post. You ignore that, and just keep repeating your previous claim. THat's the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion and you lose.


3. Actually, I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

You just mentioned IM2 to me in your previous post.....or did you already forget that as well?

No, and that doesn't change what I said.


I mentioned YOU to HIM, and YOU choose to jump in. I'm well aware that he is "here".

I jumped in initially, because YOU mentioed ME, and I spoke for myself in response, which is normal.

I'm not the one complaining about it.

Just like the poll that was taken for this thread title,i general polls depending on who is taking them can be biased, or collect data from a select group, to obtain a desired result, just like numbers, polls can be manipulated as well.

So, no you don't speak for anyone that you do not really even know, nor do I.

It is arrogant to think that you do.

YOur stand against the concept of polling and communication and logical analysis is noted and laughed at.


Yes. One has to be careful with polls. If you think I was wrong in what I said, when I spoke for white people, as a group, you are welcome to try to challenge what I said, or my claim that whites as a group agree with me.

Otherwise, save your drama for some who cares.

It is a collectivist mindset to have certain beliefs regarding anything and assume that what you happen to think applies to a "vast majority" which comprises millions of people.

It would be, if I had just "assumed" as you claim. But I did not.

So, all you are doing is spouting stuff and nonsense.

And your childish "win/lose" reasoning makes you look even sillier.

LOL!!!

This is not grade school, or a contest.

This is a small part of the COntest of Ideas, and you certainly do a lot of losing.

I do not "stand against polling", you have a habit of reading into what others post here and then attempt to interpret what is stated to fit your agenda. Which is likely the reason that you get ridiculed so often and end up whining about being "smeared".

You are standing against the concept of reading polls telling what a position on an issue a group holds, and taking that information to mean that the group holds that position.

That's standing against the very concept of polling.

What I stated is that polls can be biased and unreliable, and reading a poll or many polls does not make you a qualified spokesperson for any vast majority of any demographic.

At what point, when polls agree and verify each other, can you finally decide that the information is likely true?

However, I would concur that you probably do accurately speak for some of the racist, alt right loons who post here.

All you did there, was call me an asshole. You have never been able to justify that claim. SO, in return, all me to call you one. YOu are an asshole.

The difference here, is that I'm telling the truth, well you are a piece of shit liar.

So there is no need for me to waste my time trying say anything sensible to you or get a point through your thick head.

I already know what you stand for.

Says the man that admits he has no care for his credibility and is just here for entertainment purposes.


Sa

Im not here to win or lose anything, this forum is not that important to me

But if it elevates your wounded self esteem to convince yourself that you've claimed a few petty victories here, then by all means do so.

The forum needs a few more clowns like you for levity

Says the man taking a stand against the concept of polling.

Says the delusional little person who professes to speak for the "vast majority" of an entire race of people.

You are a habitual liar and a racist POS.
And now you are proving to be nuts as well.


Stating that polls CAN BE unreliable is not the same a stating that "you are totally against the concept of polling".

But, it is true that "having credibility in the view of a racist, lying nutjob IS NOT important" to me.

At all.

And, I did not call you an ASSHOLE in my last post , as you claim.

But, since you think that I did, that apparantley means that you realize that you are.

That brief moment of clarity is a good start for you. You can build on that.

 

[Correll]

[




Says the delusional little person who professes to speak for the "vast majority" of an entire race of people.

I'm sure on that issue, that I was well backed up by polls, or I would not have said it.

You are the one that is delusional.

You are a habitual liar and a racist POS.

No, I have a habit of calling out lefties on their lies, and that is why you call me a racist.


Fuck you.

And now you are proving to be nuts as well.

Because when I am part of a large group, and I have information that my opinion is the common one in that large group, that I am comfortable speaking for that large group?

That's not crazy.

Stating that polls CAN BE unreliable is not the same a stating that "you are totally against the concept of polling".

Yet, I asked you when you can start trusting a polls information, and you did not answer.

But, it is true that "having credibility in the view of a racist, lying nutjob IS NOT important" to me.

Except that you know that I am not a "racist" , nor a liar.

You are the liar and the asshole here, not me.

At all

And, I did not call you an ASSHOLE in my last post , as you claim.

When a lefty calls a conservative a racist, 99% of the time, it is not justified and they know it, they are only using the term as a personal insult.

In ours society, a very vile insult.

Hence, I responded in kind.

But, since you think that I did, that apparantley means that you realize that you are.

That brief moment of clarity is a good start for you.

I know very well that the names you call me, implied or actual, are complete bullshit.


I also know, that well I return the favor, that I am telling the truth.


And, on some level, so do you.

 

[MindWars]

idiot

 

[katsteve2012]

[




Says the delusional little person who professes to speak for the "vast majority" of an entire race of people.

I'm sure on that issue, that I was well backed up by polls, or I would not have said it.

You are the one that is delusional.

You are a habitual liar and a racist POS.

No, I have a habit of calling out lefties on their lies, and that is why you call me a racist.


Fuck you.

And now you are proving to be nuts as well.

Because when I am part of a large group, and I have information that my opinion is the common one in that large group, that I am comfortable speaking for that large group?

That's not crazy.

Stating that polls CAN BE unreliable is not the same a stating that "you are totally against the concept of polling".

Yet, I asked you when you can start trusting a polls information, and you did not answer.

But, it is true that "having credibility in the view of a racist, lying nutjob IS NOT important" to me.

Except that you know that I am not a "racist" , nor a liar.

You are the liar and the asshole here, not me.

At all

And, I did not call you an ASSHOLE in my last post , as you claim.

When a lefty calls a conservative a racist, 99% of the time, it is not justified and they know it, they are only using the term as a personal insult.

In ours society, a very vile insult.

Hence, I responded in kind.

But, since you think that I did, that apparantley means that you realize that you are.

That brief moment of clarity is a good start for you.

I know very well that the names you call me, implied or actual, are complete bullshit.


I also know, that well I return the favor, that I am telling the truth.


And, on some level, so do you.

You're a fucking idiot. The more that you type, the more I can see that the truth and reality is something that you are devoid of understanding.

I'm not a "lefty" as you keep insisting. I just call an asshole an asshole when I see an asshole.

And I call racists accordingly as well.

Both of which you are, and one of the most obvious here.

So you are welcomed to keep deluding yourself with all of your imagined B.S.

Any high school student understands the reliability of public opinion polls.

The fact that you are too dense to understand that fact is a testament to your abject stupidity and ridiculously misinformed ignorance.

Try educating yourself on the topics that you obviously don't understand, because the only thing that is worse than a lying racist is a STUPID, lying racist.

Can opinion polls ever be accurate? Probably not

 

[Correll]

[




Says the delusional little person who professes to speak for the "vast majority" of an entire race of people.

I'm sure on that issue, that I was well backed up by polls, or I would not have said it.

You are the one that is delusional.

You are a habitual liar and a racist POS.

No, I have a habit of calling out lefties on their lies, and that is why you call me a racist.


Fuck you.

And now you are proving to be nuts as well.

Because when I am part of a large group, and I have information that my opinion is the common one in that large group, that I am comfortable speaking for that large group?

That's not crazy.

Stating that polls CAN BE unreliable is not the same a stating that "you are totally against the concept of polling".

Yet, I asked you when you can start trusting a polls information, and you did not answer.

But, it is true that "having credibility in the view of a racist, lying nutjob IS NOT important" to me.

Except that you know that I am not a "racist" , nor a liar.

You are the liar and the asshole here, not me.

At all

And, I did not call you an ASSHOLE in my last post , as you claim.

When a lefty calls a conservative a racist, 99% of the time, it is not justified and they know it, they are only using the term as a personal insult.

In ours society, a very vile insult.

Hence, I responded in kind.

But, since you think that I did, that apparantley means that you realize that you are.

That brief moment of clarity is a good start for you.

I know very well that the names you call me, implied or actual, are complete bullshit.


I also know, that well I return the favor, that I am telling the truth.


And, on some level, so do you.

You're a fucking idiot. The more that you type, the more I can see that the truth and reality is something that you are devoid of understanding.

Meaningless lies and insults is all you have. Standard lefty. ALso, you are the fucking idiot here.

I'm not a "lefty" as you keep insisting. I just call an asshole an asshole when I see an asshole.

Bullshit. You are a lefty asshole.

And I call racists accordingly as well.

MEGA bullshit. YOu use the slur "racist" exactly as is standard operation procedure for vile lefties.


As a weapon to use against conservatives who's arguments you cannot refute.

Both of which you are, and one of the most obvious here.

Only to people like yourself, you define "Racist" as a conservative who is unafraid of calling me on my bullshit and kicking my ass.

So you are welcomed to keep deluding yourself with all of your imagined B.S.

NOt my imagination that I have totally kicked your ass, and that you are an asshole.

Any high school student understands the reliability of public opinion polls.

Which is why you want to have a lot of supporting polls with different methodologies, and to have additional supporting evidence.

Which I am sure I did, in whatever example you were referring to.

The fact that you are too dense to understand that fact is a testament to your abject stupidity and ridiculously misinformed ignorance.

Standard lefty closed mind. ANy disagreement with the lefty narrative must be based on a problem with the person that disagrees.

THis is primarily based on their minds being so closed that they cannot imagine any other viewpoint.


This is of course, further evidence that you are a lefty. As if any was needed.

Try educating yourself on the topics that you obviously don't understand, because the only thing that is worse than a lying racist is a STUPID, lying racist.

Can opinion polls ever be accurate? Probably not

As all you did there was call me an asshole, over and over again, let me remind you, that it is you who are the lying asshole here.

You lying asshole fucker.


You don't have the credibility to have me click on a post. If there is a point to make, make it.


If it makes any more sense that your standard post, ie just calling someone a name, I will look at it then.


Until then,

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

 

[Correll]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

 

[katsteve2012]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

 

[Correll]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

 

[katsteve2012]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

No need to

1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide.
Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaignof conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, pro-Civil Rights Act, Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republicanand Goldwater Republican).[36]

In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Both parties used to be racist. One welcomes their "alt" members today.

 

[Correll]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War.

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

No need to

1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide.
Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaignof conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, pro-Civil Rights Act, Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republicanand Goldwater Republican).[36]

In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign.

"Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination."


Correct.

His campaign platform did NOT represent any repudiation of the Civil Rights that the GOP had been at the forefront of.


And later on, in 1976, Jimmy Carter, running as a by then, pro civil rights Democrat, swept the South.



Disproving the idea that the SOuth was flipped by Nixon's mythical "Southern Strategy".

 

[katsteve2012]

Political parties retool and reboot all the time, here and everywhere else in the world down through history.
Dems in the East, West and North disowned the bigoted Southern Democrats in the early 1960's.
Nixon put the final nail in the coffin with his Southern Strategy, which turned all those Southern Dems into Republicans.
Together with fundamentalist Right Wing Christian extremists, they now dominate the GOP.

Case closed.

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

No need to

1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide.
Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaignof conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, pro-Civil Rights Act, Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republicanand Goldwater Republican).[36]

In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign.

"Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination."


Correct.

His campaign platform did NOT represent any repudiation of the Civil Rights that the GOP had been at the forefront of.


And later on, in 1976, Jimmy Carter, running as a by then, pro civil rights Democrat, swept the South.



Disproving the idea that the SOuth was flipped by Nixon's mythical "Southern Strategy".

It disproves nothing in terms of why the southern democrats became republicans.

Elections are won and lost based on party platforms from election to election.




Carter promptly lost every state in the south except for 2 in 1980.

 

[Correll]

Except that that is not what happened. At all.

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

No need to

1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide.
Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaignof conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, pro-Civil Rights Act, Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republicanand Goldwater Republican).[36]

In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign.

"Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination."


Correct.

His campaign platform did NOT represent any repudiation of the Civil Rights that the GOP had been at the forefront of.


And later on, in 1976, Jimmy Carter, running as a by then, pro civil rights Democrat, swept the South.



Disproving the idea that the SOuth was flipped by Nixon's mythical "Southern Strategy".

It disproves nothing in terms of why the southern democrats became republicans.

Elections are won and lost based on party platforms from election to election.




Carter promptly lost every state in the south except for 2 in 1980.

The myth of the Southern Strategy is that the Southern Democrats became republicans because their racism was pandered to by Nixon. And by every gop candidate since then, keeping the South GOP.


Thus Carter's win, shows that that is false.

That, as you said, "Elections are won and lost based on party platforms from election to election."


Carter certainly did not run on a racist platform. ANd yet he won the South.


That is the opposite of what the Southern Strategy claims.

 

[katsteve2012]

Yes it did.

Tell it to Jimmy Carter.

No need to

1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide.
Many of the states' rights Democrats were attracted to the 1964 presidential campaignof conservative Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees, such as President Eisenhower. Goldwater's principal opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, pro-Civil Rights Act, Northern wing of the party (see Rockefeller Republicanand Goldwater Republican).[36]

In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign.

"Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.[37] He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of state; and second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination."


Correct.

His campaign platform did NOT represent any repudiation of the Civil Rights that the GOP had been at the forefront of.


And later on, in 1976, Jimmy Carter, running as a by then, pro civil rights Democrat, swept the South.



Disproving the idea that the SOuth was flipped by Nixon's mythical "Southern Strategy".

It disproves nothing in terms of why the southern democrats became republicans.

Elections are won and lost based on party platforms from election to election.




Carter promptly lost every state in the south except for 2 in 1980.

The myth of the Southern Strategy is that the Southern Democrats became republicans because their racism was pandered to by Nixon. And by every gop candidate since then, keeping the South GOP.


Thus Carter's win, shows that that is false.

That, as you said, "Elections are won and lost based on party platforms from election to election."


Carter certainly did not run on a racist platform. ANd yet he won the South.


That is the opposite of what the Southern Strategy claims.

Carter ran on a platform that blocked the Southern Strategy for ONE election cycle. That is obvious.

His win in 1976 did not disprove what happened 8 years prior in 1968.


Why did James Earl Carter win the 1976 presidential election?