The myth of the so called "southern strategy" brought about by leftist propagandists.

We were racist for black people yes. ....

Thank you for admitting it. Keep in mind, that you have admitted that you are "racist FOR black people".

Thus, fighting against you, is not RACISM, it is ANTI-RACISM.

So, you need to drop the shit about accusing us of racism, simply for not wanting to be complete simps and take your oppression meekly.

Everything WE did for blacks, it was us liberals not you white Conservatives. Even if back then we were Republicans and you were Dixiecrats.

Couple of points...


1. LEt's keep in mind, that until Trump, EVERY republican president supported that anti-white racism. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Both Bushes. They were slightly less aggressive and hateful about it, but they certainly did not stand up against your anti-white oppression. Remember, you have said it very often, to the Rich, we are all *******. So... don't forget that you already know that the idea that the republicans were against this is bullshit.


2. And even now, with Trump, we are still completely ok with EQUALITY for blacks, both legal and economic, and political and ect. ect. ect.

We are just increasing done, being their ******* simps.

So, that's the reality of the situation.

Again, thanks for admitting that your agenda is RACISM IN FAVOR OF BLACKS.
 
Allow me to repeat facts that you continue to ignore:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only passed thanks to Republican support. 82% of Senate Republicans voted for the act, whereas 69% of Senate Democrats voted for it. 80% of House Republicans voted for the act, whereas 61% of House Democrats voted for it. Southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered the act for 74 days. If the vast majority of Republicans in Congress had not supported the act, it would not have passed in 1964.

By 1980, the Democrats had lost the South for a number of reasons: Their shameful opposition to the Vietnam War and their subsequent betrayal of South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords, their embrace of abortion and gun control, and their support for forced school busing.

And, FYI, in 2008, Obama won the Southern states of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

So once again you are linking southern democrats with northern democrats.
Northern Democrats supported civil rights at a higher percentage than northern republicans

Guess what Skippy
Civil Rights was primarily a North/South issue NOT a Democrat/ Republican issue
 
So once again you are linking southern democrats with northern democrats.
Northern Democrats supported civil rights at a higher percentage than northern republicans

Guess what Skippy
Civil Rights was primarily a North/South issue NOT a Democrat/ Republican issue

Jimmy Carter was well known as a strong "Civil rights" supporter.


1777911607914.webp
 
Yes, in 1976, Southerners voted for their home boy Carter
Who did those same voters support in 1968?
George Wallace

Was that the George Wallace that had completely renounced his earlier racism?
 
My mistake
Carter ran in 1976
Wallace ran in 1968

Yep. History does not support the shit you say.

Even AFTER johnson's big policy change, the south was happy to support many Dems. For quite a while.

Whatever the reason(s) for the gradual shift in parties, it clearly was NOT civil rights.


1777914001637.webp
 
Who did those same [Southern] voters support in 1968?
George Wallace
Wrong. Where in the world do you get your information? Nixon won seven of the 13 Southern states (FL, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, OK), even though he had spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and had supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Humphrey won the largest Southern state, TX. Of the five Southern states that Wallace won, he won three of them with less than 50% of the vote.

You are living in a far-left alternative reality if you think race was the dominant issue in the South in the 1968 election. The Vietnam War and law and order were the main issues in the 1968 election, not civil rights. Forced busing had not yet begun. Southern voters were disgusted with LBJ's timid handling of the Vietnam War and with the breakdown in law and order in many parts of the country.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Where in the world do you get your information? Nixon won seven of the 12 Southern states (FL, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, OK), even though he had spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and had supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Humphrey won the largest Southern state, TX. Of the five Southern states that Wallace won, he won three of them with less than 40% of the vote.

You are living in a far-left alternative reality if you think race was the dominant issue in the South in the 1968 election. The Vietnam War and law and order were the main issues in the 1968 election, not civil rights. Forced busing had not yet begun. Southern voters were disgusted with LBJ's timid handling of the Vietnam War and with the breakdown in law and order in many parts of the country.
A third party candidate and avowed racist took FIVE southern states
 
A third party candidate and avowed racist took FIVE southern states
You just can't admit anything, can you? You said Southern voters backed Wallace in 1968, which is erroneous. You weren't just a little wrong: you were severely wrong.

Now, you stress that Wallace won five states, but you ignore the fact that he lost eight of the 13 Southern states, and that he won three of his five states with less than 50% of the vote, which means that in three of the states he won more than 50% of the voters voted for someone else.

And, BTW, Wallace was not an "avowed racist." He stoutly denied being a racist. Although he was an avowed staunch segregationist, as governor of Alabama he actually increased funding for black schools, doubled spending for health care, and gave teachers a substantial raise. During his first term (1963-1967), Wallace attracted nearly $350 million ($3.4 billion today) in expanded and new industries to Alabama, which added 19,000 low-wage jobs in 1963 alone. Here's a shocker: Are you aware that when he ran for reelection in 1982, Wallace won with an unprecedented amount of black voter support?
 
Last edited:
Allow me to repeat facts that you continue to ignore:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only passed thanks to Republican support. 82% of Senate Republicans voted for the act, whereas 69% of Senate Democrats voted for it. 80% of House Republicans voted for the act, whereas 61% of House Democrats voted for it. Southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered the act for 74 days. If the vast majority of Republicans in Congress had not supported the act, it would not have passed in 1964.

By 1980, the Democrats had lost the South for a number of reasons: Their shameful opposition to the Vietnam War and their subsequent betrayal of South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords, their embrace of abortion and gun control, and their support for forced school busing.

And, FYI, in 2008, Obama won the Southern states of Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
So what? That's when the party started changing. Why do you ignore the obvious? Your party is CLEARLY not the civil rights party you dumb ass. Your party just gutted the voting rights act. You basically killed it. So if you passed it, why did you kill it?

AI makes you right wing liars so freakin obvious

The Southern Strategy was a Republican Party electoral approach, primarily active from the 1960s to the 1980s, designed to win over white Southern voters by appealing to racial backlash against the Civil Rights Movement and promoting conservative views on "states' rights," law and order, and taxes. This strategy shifted the South from reliably Democratic to solidly Republican, dramatically realigning American politics
 
Thank you for admitting it. Keep in mind, that you have admitted that you are "racist FOR black people".

Thus, fighting against you, is not RACISM, it is ANTI-RACISM.

So, you need to drop the shit about accusing us of racism, simply for not wanting to be complete simps and take your oppression meekly.



Couple of points...


1. LEt's keep in mind, that until Trump, EVERY republican president supported that anti-white racism. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Both Bushes. They were slightly less aggressive and hateful about it, but they certainly did not stand up against your anti-white oppression. Remember, you have said it very often, to the Rich, we are all *******. So... don't forget that you already know that the idea that the republicans were against this is bullshit.


2. And even now, with Trump, we are still completely ok with EQUALITY for blacks, both legal and economic, and political and ect. ect. ect.

We are just increasing done, being their ******* simps.

So, that's the reality of the situation.

Again, thanks for admitting that your agenda is RACISM IN FAVOR OF BLACKS.
It is/was the only way to fight white racism. Force you to hire some blacks. Because you wouldn't otherwise. So, take away your federal tax breaks or contracts if you don't do what is morally and ethically right.

Oh you poor white trash. And look at what happened to you the second you got a taste of what it's like to be black. You were quick to get hooked on heroine, commit suicide, kill yourselves drinking, increased crime. So much for telling poor blacks to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. You saw what happened to poor white trash the second their good paying jobs went overseas.

You're so wrong

Yes, President George W. Bush actively opposed race-conscious affirmative action policies, specifically targeting university admissions policies he viewed as "quota systems". He advocated for "race-neutral" alternatives, arguing that awarding points based on race, such as at the University of Michigan, was unconstitutional and divisive, while supporting "diversity"

Yes, Ronald Reagan opposed affirmative action, framing it as "reverse discrimination" and advocating for a color-blind society. His administration actively sought to weaken affirmative action programs, reduced funding for civil rights enforcement agencies, and appointed conservative opponents of such policies to key positions like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
 
You just can't admit anything, can you? You said Southern voters backed Wallace in 1968, which is erroneous. You weren't just a little wrong: you were severely wrong.

Now, you stress that Wallace won five states, but you ignore the fact that he lost eight of the 13 Southern states, and that he won three of his five states with less than 50% of the vote, which means that in three of the states he won more than 50% of the voters voted for someone else.

And, BTW, Wallace was not an "avowed racist." He stoutly denied being a racist. Although he was an avowed staunch segregationist, as governor of Alabama he actually increased funding for black schools, doubled spending for health care, and gave teachers a substantial raise. During his first term (1963-1967), Wallace attracted nearly $350 million ($3.4 billion today) in expanded and new industries to Alabama, which added 19,000 low-wage jobs in 1963 alone. Here's a shocker: Are you aware that when he ran for reelection in 1982, Wallace won with an unprecedented amount of black voter support?
Let’s talk the REAL South
Wallace ran on segregation and cleaned up in the traditional southern states
 
Wrong. Where in the world do you get your information? Nixon won seven of the 13 Southern states (FL, SC, NC, VA, TN, KY, OK), even though he had spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and had supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Humphrey won the largest Southern state, TX. Of the five Southern states that Wallace won, he won three of them with less than 50% of the vote.
.....

rightwinger doesn't care about any of that. No leftard does.


They NEED to believe that the US is a horribly racist society. They feel THREATENED, by any hint or claim that the US is NOT a horribly racist society and will attack viciously.
 
15th post
It is/was the only way to fight white racism. Force you to hire some blacks. Because you wouldn't otherwise. So, take away your federal tax breaks or contracts if you don't do what is morally and ethically right.

But you admitted that to the rich, we are all *******. So, that's not true. The EMPLOYERS didn't give a **** about white workers, they hired who did the job better or cheaper.

So... you've admitted that what you just claimed here, was bullshit. So.... stop saying shit you know is bullshit.



Oh you poor white trash. And look at what happened to you the second you got a taste of what it's like to be black. You were quick to get hooked on heroine, commit suicide, kill yourselves drinking, increased crime. So much for telling poor blacks to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. You saw what happened to poor white trash the second their good paying jobs went overseas.

So, you admit that poor whites got fucked hard by this system and these programs. And this trade policy.

Yet you attack us for voting to change it.

And you are a rude asshole about it....

And you continue to support the status quo that you admit fucked your own people.....




You're so wrong

Yes, President George W. Bush actively opposed race-conscious affirmative action policies, specifically targeting university admissions policies he viewed as "quota systems". He advocated for "race-neutral" alternatives, arguing that awarding points based on race, such as at the University of Michigan, was unconstitutional and divisive, while supporting "diversity"

Tiny nibbles at the margins. He was part of the status quo RICH, that thinks of us poor white as *******, as you have stated many times.

So, any hint that he was loyal to poor, or even middle class whites, based on some sort of RACIAL LOYALTY,

is clearly shit talk. That you know is shit talk.

Yet, you spew this shit talk, because, it is the best you have to support your leftie policy positions.

Because on some level, you know that they SUCK ASS.


Yes, Ronald Reagan opposed affirmative action, framing it as "reverse discrimination" and advocating for a color-blind society. His administration actively sought to weaken affirmative action programs, reduced funding for civil rights enforcement agencies, and appointed conservative opponents of such policies to key positions like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Again, tiny nibbles at the margins of these policies.

you need to stop this shit talk.


You have two choices.

Change your position and stop supporting this stupid anti-white racist shit.

Or admit your real reasons for doing so. Whatever they may be.
 
But you admitted that to the rich, we are all *******. So, that's not true. The EMPLOYERS didn't give a **** about white workers, they hired who did the job better or cheaper.

So... you've admitted that what you just claimed here, was bullshit. So.... stop saying shit you know is bullshit.





So, you admit that poor whites got fucked hard by this system and these programs. And this trade policy.

Yet you attack us for voting to change it.

And you are a rude asshole about it....

And you continue to support the status quo that you admit fucked your own people.....






Tiny nibbles at the margins. He was part of the status quo RICH, that thinks of us poor white as *******, as you have stated many times.

So, any hint that he was loyal to poor, or even middle class whites, based on some sort of RACIAL LOYALTY,

is clearly shit talk. That you know is shit talk.

Yet, you spew this shit talk, because, it is the best you have to support your leftie policy positions.

Because on some level, you know that they SUCK ASS.




Again, tiny nibbles at the margins of these policies.

you need to stop this shit talk.


You have two choices.

Change your position and stop supporting this stupid anti-white racist shit.

Or admit your real reasons for doing so. Whatever they may be.
You're insane. A lost cause. Your party clearly sucks and you seem angry that I'm right about them/you. Pathetic.

No employers who only care about profits don't care about you poor whites but a lot of employers are white racists so in some ways they do care. But to save money they'll f you white blue collar idiots in the A that's for sure.
 
You're insane. A lost cause. Your party clearly sucks and you seem angry that I'm right about them/you. Pathetic.

Errr, I am/was happy to discuss how they have dropped the ball on this issue, for decades, until Trump.

So, How about you drop the shit talk and actually ENGAGE, with me seriously?



No employers who only care about profits don't care about you poor whites but a lot of employers are white racists so in some ways they do care.

Wow. Look at you try to have it both ways, INSIDE OF A SINGLE SENTENCE.

As a lefty, you pretend that the reason that we whites support the GOP is because of RACISM, ie that the rich whites and poor whites, are united in keeping the black man down, yet as a lefty you also need to support the concept of CLASS WARFARE, that is so dear to your marxist hearts.

How to hold completely contradictory ideas?

Simple, just do it, and attack anyone that dares to call you out on it. Also, stonewall, by pretending to be retarded.


But to save money they'll f you white blue collar idiots in the A that's for sure.

So, Trump is deporting a lot of brown people and putting tariffs on a lot of shit coming in from other non-white countries...

Yet, you CAN'T admit thus that it makes sense for working class whites to support him, you have to attack us for being racist for supporting the guy that is FINALLY looking out for us, yet, you also have to attack us for the racism of deporting the brown guys and supporting the guy that is doing it....


You know, back in the 80s, I was a FREE TRADE guy. On paper it made sense, and all the talking head economists insisted that it would be good for America.

In time, it slowly became impossible to ignore that it did NOT work out the way we were promised.

Instead of lying about it, or living in some kind of denial, I switched and started supporting the ANTI-FREE TRADE, economic nationalists like Patrick Buchanan and Trump.

It was easy. I had to admit that I was wrong about that issue, back in the day, but so what? I made the best call I could, based on the information and policy discussions of the time.


But, RESULTS, can not, or SHOULD NOT be ignored. And I adjusted my position based on new evidence.

I now don't spend my time attacking people that point out the failures of FREE TRADE.
 
Let’s talk the REAL South
Wallace ran on segregation and cleaned up in the traditional southern states

You still refuse to face facts and just admit you blundered. Again, of the five Southern states that Wallace won, he won two of them by less than 50% and one of them by less than 40%. He lost eight of the 13 Southern states.

Texas was certainly part of the "REAL South," and Humphrey won it. South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida were certainly part of the "REAL South," all of them being former Confederate states, and Nixon won all of them, even though he backed the 1957 and 1964 civil rights bills. So your narrative that the South backed Wallace in 1968 is simply false.

The only Nixon states that one could weakly, lamely argue were not part of the "REAL South" were Oklahoma and Kentucky, only because Kentucky narrowly avoided joining the Confederacy and Oklahoma was not yet a state when the Civil War began. But Kentucky was a slave state and provided tens of thousands of soldiers to the Confederate army. Kentucky was also a staunch supporter and practitioner of segregation. And, Oklahoma was--and still is--solidly Southern in its culture and politics. Oklahoma adopted Jim Crow laws as soon as it gained statehood in 1907 and was one of the most segregated states in the South. Yet, Nixon won both states even though he had backed the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights bills.

And, no, Wallace did not "run on segregation" in 1968. You don't know what you're talking about, again. He ran mainly on restoring law and order, winning the Vietnam war, cutting taxes, reforming welfare, and restraining the federal government. Here's a segment from his major policy speech at Madison Square Garden in October 1968:

Our system is under attack: the property system, the free enterprise system, and local government. Anarchy prevails today in the streets of the large cities of our country, making it unsafe for you to even go to a political rally here in Madison Square Garden, and that is a sad commentary. Both national parties in the last number of years have kowtowed to every anarchist that has roamed the streets. I want to say before I start on this any longer, that I’m not talking about race. The overwhelming majority of all races in this country are against this breakdown of law and order as much as those who are assembled here tonight. It’s a few anarchists, a few activists, a few militants, a few revolutionaries, and a few Communists. But your day, of course is going to be over soon. The American people are not going to stand by and see the security of our nation imperiled, and they’re not going to stand by and see this nation destroyed, I can assure you that. . . .

You had better be thankful for the police and the firemen of this country. If it were not for them, you couldn’t even ride in the streets, much less walk in the streets, of our large cities. Yes, the Kerner Commission Report, recently written by Republicans and Democrats, said that you are to blame for the breakdown of law and order, and that the police are to blame. Well, you know, of course, you aren’t to blame. They said we have a sick society. Well, we don’t have any sick society. We have a sick Supreme Court and some sick politicians in Washington, – that’s who’s sick in our country. The Supreme Court of our country has ruled that you cannot even say a simple prayer in a public school, but you can send obscene literature though the mail, and recently they ruled that a Communist can work in a defense plant. But when I become your president, we’re going to take every Communist out of every defense plant in the United States, I can assure you. . . .

We are in Vietnam whether you like it or not. I sincerely hope and pray that the conflict is soon over, but we should have learned one thing about our involvement in Southeast Asia—the same thing that Mr. Humphrey now says in his speeches: we should not march alone. I said last year in California that we should never have gone to Vietnam—by ourselves. We should have looked our allies in the face in Western Europe and our non-Communist Asian Allies and said to them: it is as much your interest as it is ours and you are going to go with manpower, munitions, and money, and if you don’t go and help us in Southeast Asia, and if you don’t stop trading with the North Vietnamese who are killing American servicemen, we are not only going to cut off every dime of foreign aid you’re getting, but we’re going to ask you to pay back all you owe us from World War I right on this very day.

I sincerely hope and pray that we have a successful negotiated peace. Well, I’ll drown them out, come on. I sincerely hope and pray that we have an honorably negotiated peace to arise out of the Paris peace talks. I know that you pray that, and that the American servicemen can come home. But if we fail diplomatically and politically in Southeast Asia, we’re not going to stay there forever, we’re not going to see hundreds of American servicemen killed every week for years and months to come. If we do not win diplomatically and politically in Paris, that is, by honorable conclusion of the war, then in my judgment, we ought to end it militarily with conventional weapons and bring the American servicemen home. If we cannot settle it diplomatically and politically, and could not win it militarily with conventional weapons, then I wonder why we’re there in the first place? We’re going to conclude this way one way or the other either through honorable negotiations or conventional military power. (Speech at Madison Square Garden)


He didn't say one word about segregation. Or, go read Wallace's official platform, i.e., the platform of his party, the American Independent Party, over which he exercised firm control: It says nothing about maintaining segregation. Here are the 11 main policy goals that the platform presented and that Wallace ran on:

1. Peace abroad and domestic tranquility at home.

2. An enlightened and advancing educational program, assisted but not controlled by the federal government.

3. Job training and opportunity for all Americans willing and able to seek and hold gainful employment.

4. An alliance and partnership with the private sector of our economy seeking an end to poverty among our people.

5. Efficiency and prudence in governmental spending leading to a helpful and stable economy free from the need for ever continuing taxation.

6. Inclusion of the farmer in our program of prosperity through his own efforts rather than total reliance on government subsidy.

7. Reestablishment of the authority and responsibility of local government by returning to the states, counties and cities those matters properly falling within their jurisdiction and responsibility.

8. Ending the inflationary spiral of the past decade through fiscal responsibility and efficiency in all echelons of government.

9. The orderly and economical utilization of the natural resources of this nation coupled with a sensible program of conservation of these resources.

10. An insistence that the laboring man and woman be given his fair share of responsibility and reward for the development of the mighty potential of this nation.

11. A re-dedication of this country to the love of God and country and the creation of a judiciary mindful of the attitudes of the people in this regard. (American Independent Party Platform of 1968 | The American Presidency Project)
 
Back
Top Bottom