This Amazing 1964 Campaign Ad Predicted Donald Trump

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ri-iiiight.

How many Democrats of note became Republicans?

Names please.

The voters of the South. They're note worthy.

I need names of prominent Democrats who switched parties.

Otherwise, eat your beets.

Red Herring. The Southern conservative Democrats started voting for Republican Presidents.

Names, bud.

You can't, can you?

I named 88% of Mississippi voters. I'm not going to try to teach you how elections work.

You may fantasize at will, but you have not yet named anyone who switched parties.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I need names of prominent Democrats who switched parties.

Otherwise, eat your beets.

Red Herring. The Southern conservative Democrats started voting for Republican Presidents.

Names, bud.

You can't, can you?

I named 88% of Mississippi voters. I'm not going to try to teach you how elections work.

I guess Billy is among the stupid.

He doesn't even know what he's trying to prove, let alone knowing how to prove it.

I'm not trying to prove anything.

That rests with you. So far, your efforts are laughably feeble.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Question: Why do you employ Chance the Gardener as an avatar? He was a complete idiot mistaken for a genius by media and politics, much like Obama.

It doesn't help your ... ummm, cause much.

It would seem you do not know what you are talking about .....and surely has nothing to connect Obama with/to

This may be shocking.......Obama is not responsible for ALL of the worlds problems............as yourself for example

No, he's not.

But he is responsible for a great many of them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So a Democrat used an actor to put together a contrived "I'm a Republican and they're not" cartoon?

Gosh, that's something really unusual!

All it shows is that the Democrats still rely on the public's unchanged gullibility with media.

Lots of Republicans felt the way Bogert did.
Goldwater lost the entire country, except the Deep South and his home state of Arizona.

Indeed, Johnson had four years. Republicans the next eight. Then Carter four. Republicans the next twelve.

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a Democrat used an actor to put together a contrived "I'm a Republican and they're not" cartoon?

Gosh, that's something really unusual!

All it shows is that the Democrats still rely on the public's unchanged gullibility with media.

Lots of Republicans felt the way Bogert did.
Goldwater lost the entire country, except the Deep South and his home state of Arizona.

Indeed, Johnson had four years. Republicans the next eight. Then Carter four. Republicans the next twelve.

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman. You have no understanding of history. It's amusing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Lots of Republicans felt the way Bogert did.
Goldwater lost the entire country, except the Deep South and his home state of Arizona.

Indeed, Johnson had four years. Republicans the next eight. Then Carter four. Republicans the next twelve.

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

 

[CityBoy]

I remember seeing the commercial......And at that point in my life was a Goldwater conservative.....and I knew after viewing it all was lost...Since then my political leaning have changed .....

 

[konradv]

I need names of prominent Democrats who switched parties. Otherwise, eat your beets.

A prime example is Mr. Dixiecrat himself, Strom Thurmond.

 

[konradv]

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, Johnson had four years. Republicans the next eight. Then Carter four. Republicans the next twelve.

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

Truman was president, remember?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I need names of prominent Democrats who switched parties. Otherwise, eat your beets.

A prime example is Mr. Dixiecrat himself, Strom Thurmond.

And he was, I believe, the only one, and switched for elective purposes, not to protest CRA64

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

Truman was president, remember?

Yes. However, he was not the Party, and caught hell for his order to integrate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Indeed, Johnson had four years. Republicans the next eight. Then Carter four. Republicans the next twelve.

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

The last of the Democratic party's segregationist wing is Zell Miller. You remember, the Democrat who endorsed John McCain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I need names of prominent Democrats who switched parties. Otherwise, eat your beets.

A prime example is Mr. Dixiecrat himself, Strom Thurmond.

And he was, I believe, the only one, and switched for elective purposes, not to protest CRA64

He's not the only one who started voting Republican for president. Most of the South started voting Republican as of 1964.

 

[bodecea]

Question: Why do you employ Chance the Gardener as an avatar? He was a complete idiot mistaken for a genius by media and politics, much like Obama.

It doesn't help your ... ummm, cause much.

Because avatars are so important for this discussion...

 

[NYcarbineer]

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

Truman was president, remember?

Yes. However, he was not the Party, and caught hell for his order to integrate.

He issued the order BEFORE he won the 1948 election.

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Truman Supports Civil Rights | PBS

 

[Rustic]

This brave republican did this ad in 1964 for the Johnson campaign.

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/03/this-amazing-1964-campaign-ad-predicted-donald-trump/

For all the similarities between Bogert's "confession" and today's Republican agita at Trump's rise, there's a major difference. A Republican in 1964 could fairly claim that Goldwater's brand of conservatism had snuck up on him, but in 2016, Trump isn't sneaking up on anyone. He's been carefully grown and tended like the Death's Head moth in Silence of the Lambs. Any Republican with the nerve to be surprised by Trump today deserves every pang of discomfort.

There would be no trump if not for the career politician like Barry, and his lemmings... Lol

 

[CityBoy]

What you may find interesting and current is Jim DeMint – a well know and recognized leader among GOP conservatives………..

His remarks on the reasons for the GOP initiative in passing new voter ID laws in the 26 GOP controlled states………

And were designed so “that the laws are actually intended to depress voter-turnout among the populations that are least likely to hold state-issued photo ID—students, the poor, minorities, and the elderly who are most likely to vote Democratic—and improve conservative prospects in elections, despite demographic changes that favor liberal candidates.”

SEE:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/jim-demint-voter-id-laws/480876/

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because the Republicans took the South away from the Democrats by appealing to its racist traditions.

More accurately – as Southern Democrats became advocates of civil rights and defending the protected liberties of all Americans during the late 60s and early 70s, bringing them in line with democrats across the country, conservative democrats in the South hostile to citizens’ civil rights and protected liberties abandoned the Democratic Party to become republicans.

Complete nonsense. Democrats attempted to scuttle the Civil Rights Act, while Dirksen and the Republicans got it rammed through.

Aside from Strom Thurmond, no one of any note switched parties, and he for political reasons.

The Democrats later picked up Civil Rights issues because Communists, for whom it had long been an active cause, joined the party and convinced them it was a winning electoral issue now that blacks had overall voting rights.

The Democrats took up the civil rights issues under Harry Truman.

Of course they did. That was the direct cause of Bobby Byrd's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sheesh ...

The last of the Democratic party's segregationist wing is Zell Miller. You remember, the Democrat who endorsed John McCain.

Ri-iiiiight.

That's why the Democrats keep their "kept" blacks holed up in urban ghettos.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What you may find interesting and current is Jim DeMint – a well know and recognized leader among GOP conservatives………..

His remarks on the reasons for the GOP initiative in passing new voter ID laws in the 26 GOP controlled states………

And were designed so “that the laws are actually intended to depress voter-turnout among the populations that are least likely to hold state-issued photo ID—students, the poor, minorities, and the elderly who are most likely to vote Democratic—and improve conservative prospects in elections, despite demographic changes that favor liberal candidates.”

It's early here yet, and I may be missing something. Where in that article does DeMint say that?

As to Voter ID, it keeps the foreign and the dead from voting, ergo as a matter of course favors those opposed to the Democrats.

There is but one valid reason to oppose Voter ID, and it is nefarious.