Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact

[AzogtheDefiler]

Doesn't make sense to a moron like you but take the John Lewis voting rights act. It can't get passed because two moderate Democrat senators and zero Republicans support it or support ending the filibuster to pass it, not because black Americans and white progressives don't support it.

You moved the goal posts. We are discussing black on black crime in Chicago. How is that the fault of racist Republicans in the South. John Lewis was a race baiter like you. Jews have had it far worse, there are a lot fewer of us and we don’t whine like you do. Grow up.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

OK, OK....stop begging....


I'm gonna give you a lesson on racist Southerners, and the ones who were more American than Democrat.


.....but don't let me catch you trying to become a Republican!!!!!!!!!

1. Goldwater went on to win five southern states in 1964: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. But he lost eight.
2. Democrats build the ‘southern strategy’ tale on the fact that the same states voted for ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond in 1948 (less Georgia).
3. Except that Nixon and Reagan lost, or almost lost the same states in ’68 and ’80…
4. And Jimmy Carter and Clinton did pretty well in those states in ’76 and ’92.
5. And the Goldwater states went right back to voting Democrat for decades…

6. So…if Republicans were racists and got racist southerners to vote for them, how to explain this: Republicans always did best in the southern states that Goldwater lost, which happened to be the same ones Republicans had been winning with some regularity since 1928.

a.In ’28, ’52, ’56, and ’60, Republicans generally won Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky and sometimes North Carolina or Louisiana. Did you notice that those years were before 1964?

b.Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on election day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.” The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy

c.In ’76, Carter swept the South. Was Carter appealing to bigots….or is that only the case when Republicans win the South?



7.Reagan lost or barely won the Goldwater states…but Reagan won among young southern voters- but lost among seniors, those who has voted in ’48 and ’64. That meant that the segregationists never abandoned the Democrats: eventually they died or were outvoted by younger voters. Nope…after Thurmond’s run, the Dixiecrats went right back to voting for Democrats for another half century.



8. In writing about McGovern and Wallace, liberal luminary, Arthur Schlesinger, actually referred to Wallace voters as responding to their candidate’s “integrity”! “The primaries themselves, especially the success of McGovern and Wallace, provide the best evidence for the proposition that voters in 1972 care less about a candidate's stand on particular issues than they do about the candidate's integrity,…”
How McGovern Will Win

• McGovern gave a tip-of-the-hat to the segregationist Wallace in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. That was the exact midpoint between Goldwater and Reagan. So…what of the imaginary “southern strategy” where the Republicans were supposed to have a plan to appeal to racists?
• Democrat McGovern: “And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. … Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stand up and speak out for all of those who see you as their champion.” ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

There are only 2 posters here who are able to post "long-winded posts that I will read-- PoliticalChic and 2aguy. You both destroy your opponents with pure facts. It's quite q sight to behold, but your political enemies just carry on as if they weren't massacred

 

[kyzr]

I don't want the Stars and Bars outlawed. I want more and more private companies and groups to publicly shame you by banning that flag at their events. It reinforces the notion that that flag is a flag of deplorables. If it was banned we wouldn't get that constant reinforcement.

NASCAR for instance telling people they don't want the Stars and Bars at their races. Well that opens up the conversation of why not and of who the Confederacy was and what the people waving that flag are supporting. All very useful propaganda.

So you think a country that allowed black children to be sold, raped and enslaved was the best country on the planet? You don't think I can use that admission to paint you as deplorable with the mainstream?

No it didn't. Blacks still faced a hundred years of terrorism and brutality at the hands of racist southerners after the proclamation.

I'm not whining, I'm making the intellectual argument that they were deplorable. You're the one crying about people pushing different narratives of you're favorite slavers.

I don't care about Nov. You haven't one the popular vote since 2004, whites are on a demographic decline and the Republican party itself is old. The future belongs to minorities and progressives.

1. No one shames anyone flying the stars and bars. NASCAR and other companies can ban it, no big deal. We don't want to trigger anyone. To most of us it represents "rebels" not racism.

2. A lot of countries sold children in the 1770s to be raped and enslaved, so what?
Ever hear of "human trafficking"? That is happening today. Where's your outrage?
You'd rather whine about the 1770s?! Ancient history.
The USA is the best country on the planet and always has been.
You can paint us anything you want, no one notices.

3. The Civil War cost 500,000 US lives. You're welcome.
The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. You're welcome.
Equality is a process. The Civil War was a bitter pill for many southerners, deal with it, its ancient history.

4. Yes you are whining about slavery, and that the Founding Fathers owned slaves back in the 1770s. You make the "intellectual argument" that they were "deplorables" because they owned slaves. That's a specious argument because "thats the way the world was back then, it was the norm". You can't put anachronistic values on people of different times. That's like saying the Founding Fathers "misgendered" their house staff so they were horrible people.

5. There is no popular vote for the president, only the Electoral College, duh. So no bets on the election in November Hershel or Warnock? Who do you like in 2024?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't want the Stars and Bars outlawed. I want more and more private companies and groups to publicly shame you by banning that flag at their events.

Sweet, tell me who, and I'll google their corporate phone numbers for you. What a keyboard warrior you are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you think a country that allowed black children to be sold, raped and enslaved was the best country on the planet? You don't think I can use that admission to paint you as deplorable with the mainstream?

If it was menial slavery back then via Democrats, it's welfare slavery now, by the same party.
You can't hide your true nature.

 

[Correll]

Who cares about you? How about the mainstream? How's the Confederate legacy with them?

Why are you being such a faggot and just attacking Confederates? You've admitted that you hate the Founding Fathers just as much. When you are dishonest like that, are you admitting you are afraid of US.


Pussy.

What's unfair? You yourself said you proudly defend slavers. You smear yourself. All we have to do is take political advantage of it.

Except, you have to lie to do it. That shows that you do not have the strong position that you pretend to have. You are bluffing.

You must not keep up with current news. Your demographic replacement is well underway. I dont know how old you are but it will certainly happen in my lifetime and the lifetime of your children.

Oh, you are assuming that all non-white people are defined by just being non-white?

That's quite an admission. Kind of pathetic self image, being defined by me and mine.


Any how, you really think that the browns and yellows are going to put up with your shit, the way that stupid whites have/did?

I hope that I live long enough to see this blow up in your face adn the face of your kind.

Pussy.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

1. No one shames anyone flying the stars and bars. NASCAR and other companies can ban it, no big deal. We don't want to trigger anyone. To most of us it represents "rebels" not racism.

2. A lot of countries sold children in the 1770s to be raped and enslaved, so what?
Ever hear of "human trafficking"? That is happening today. Where's your outrage?
You'd rather whine about the 1770s?! Ancient history.
The USA is the best country on the planet and always has been.
You can paint us anything you want, no one notices.

3. The Civil War cost 500,000 US lives. You're welcome.
The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. You're welcome.
Equality is a process. The Civil War was a bitter pill for many southerners, deal with it, its ancient history.

4. Yes you are whining about slavery, and that the Founding Fathers owned slaves back in the 1770s. You make the "intellectual argument" that they were "deplorables" because they owned slaves. That's a specious argument because "thats the way the world was back then, it was the norm". You can't put anachronistic values on people of different times. That's like saying the Founding Fathers "misgendered" their house staff so they were horrible people.

5. There is no popular vote for the president, only the Electoral College, duh. So no bets on the election in November Hershel or Warnock? Who do you like in 2024?

Exactly! Those who fly that flag, fly it as a symbol of REBELLION against an oppressive federal government that was NEVER supposed to be regulating every aspect of our lives.

The Democrats use it to work up the ignorant masses to foment HATE towards anyone who stands in the way of their fascist agenda

 

[Uriel]

Think of it this way. When the current demographic trend of whites becoming a minority in the US is hailed as a positive thing, it's not a conspiracy theory.

When it's considered negative and having an ulterior motive, it is considered a conspiracy theory.

So, the left admits that the replacement phenomenon is happening, but it just uses different terminology and a different tone when mentioning it.

 

[Correll]

The mayor supported defund the police is and is a Democrat in a deep blue state. The president is a Democrat. Congress is controlled by Democrats but the fault of black on black crime in Chicago rests with white Republicans in the South. This makes sense to you. LOL.

People like curried goat, just talk shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Think of it this way. When the current demographic trend of whites becoming a minority in the US is hailed as a positive thing, it's not a conspiracy theory.

When it's considered negative and having an ulterior motive, it is considered a conspiracy theory.

So, the left admits that the replacement phenomenon is happening, but it just uses different terminology and a different tone when mentioning it.

If not for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.

 

[Uriel]

Can I get you to tell me when the white southern population switched from being deplorable assclowns?

The southern strategy concept is pretty flawed when you look at the timing of the party switch in much of the South. Many Appalachian areas were Republican long before the Civil Rights Act, for example.

Even in a lot of the Solid South regions, local offices were dominated by Democrats up until the late 80s and early 90s. Presidential elections often switched earlier, but when considering that these same regions continued to elect Democratic Representatives and Senators until much later, the concept really doesn't hold up to reality.

The reason why Democrats started to lose the South in presidential elections really had more to do with how most Democratic candidates for president were from other parts of the country and typically had policies or values that weren't representative of the South. It wasn't specifically segregation related.

This is shown by how the most successful Democratic presidential candidates in the South in recent decades were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both were Southerners and much more relatable to the South than various other candidates.

 

[Correll]

The southern strategy concept is pretty flawed when you look at the timing of the party switch in much of the South. Many Appalachian areas were Republican long before the Civil Rights Act, for example.

Even in a lot of the Solid South regions, local offices were dominated by Democrats up until the late 80s and early 90s. Presidential elections often switched earlier, but when considering that these same regions continued to elect Democratic Representatives and Senators until much later, the concept really doesn't hold up to reality.

The reason why Democrats started to lose the South in presidential elections really had more to do with how most Democratic candidates for president were from other parts of the country and typically had policies or values that weren't representative of the South. It wasn't specifically segregation related.

This is shown by how the most successful Democratic presidential candidates in the South in recent decades were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both were Southerners and much more relatable to the South than various other candidates.

Jimmy Carter 1976, TWELVE YEARS after Goldwater supposedly started the Southern Strategy. Jimmy FUcking Carter, well know civil rights supporter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The southern strategy concept is pretty flawed when you look at the timing of the party switch in much of the South. Many Appalachian areas were Republican long before the Civil Rights Act, for example.

Even in a lot of the Solid South regions, local offices were dominated by Democrats up until the late 80s and early 90s. Presidential elections often switched earlier, but when considering that these same regions continued to elect Democratic Representatives and Senators until much later, the concept really doesn't hold up to reality.

The reason why Democrats started to lose the South in presidential elections really had more to do with how most Democratic candidates for president were from other parts of the country and typically had policies or values that weren't representative of the South. It wasn't specifically segregation related.

This is shown by how the most successful Democratic presidential candidates in the South in recent decades were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both were Southerners and much more relatable to the South than various other candidates.

Uriel. That is an awesome name.
Democrats are Democrats, they can't hide their legacy, they can only disguise it by doing essentially the same thing in the modern era...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

We'll import more. Mostly from Scandinavia or, dare I say, RUSSIA, if I have any say.

View attachment 648361

It would be refreshing to see more of that instead of the same old cookie-cutter people we see pouring over our open southern border.

 

[Curried Goats]

OK, OK....stop begging....


I'm gonna give you a lesson on racist Southerners, and the ones who were more American than Democrat.


.....but don't let me catch you trying to become a Republican!!!!!!!!!

1. Goldwater went on to win five southern states in 1964: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. But he lost eight.
2. Democrats build the ‘southern strategy’ tale on the fact that the same states voted for ‘Dixiecrat’ Strom Thurmond in 1948 (less Georgia).
3. Except that Nixon and Reagan lost, or almost lost the same states in ’68 and ’80…
4. And Jimmy Carter and Clinton did pretty well in those states in ’76 and ’92.
5. And the Goldwater states went right back to voting Democrat for decades…

6. So…if Republicans were racists and got racist southerners to vote for them, how to explain this: Republicans always did best in the southern states that Goldwater lost, which happened to be the same ones Republicans had been winning with some regularity since 1928.

a.In ’28, ’52, ’56, and ’60, Republicans generally won Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky and sometimes North Carolina or Louisiana. Did you notice that those years were before 1964?

b.Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats: Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on election day. Nixon got none of ‘em. “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.” The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy

c.In ’76, Carter swept the South. Was Carter appealing to bigots….or is that only the case when Republicans win the South?



7.Reagan lost or barely won the Goldwater states…but Reagan won among young southern voters- but lost among seniors, those who has voted in ’48 and ’64. That meant that the segregationists never abandoned the Democrats: eventually they died or were outvoted by younger voters. Nope…after Thurmond’s run, the Dixiecrats went right back to voting for Democrats for another half century.



8. In writing about McGovern and Wallace, liberal luminary, Arthur Schlesinger, actually referred to Wallace voters as responding to their candidate’s “integrity”! “The primaries themselves, especially the success of McGovern and Wallace, provide the best evidence for the proposition that voters in 1972 care less about a candidate's stand on particular issues than they do about the candidate's integrity,…”
How McGovern Will Win

• McGovern gave a tip-of-the-hat to the segregationist Wallace in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. That was the exact midpoint between Goldwater and Reagan. So…what of the imaginary “southern strategy” where the Republicans were supposed to have a plan to appeal to racists?
• Democrat McGovern: “And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. … Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stand up and speak out for all of those who see you as their champion.” ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF SENATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!

No you moron. Again, you keep trying to make it about party and I'm talking about the southern white population. Let's break it down.

Goldwater won some southern States with his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights, (not because he was a racist, he supported previous civil rights acts, but over libertarian principles). Johnson, having signed the civil rights act into law garnered a lot of support from black voters who turned out in record numbers not to be seen again until Obama's election and I'm sure segregationist Democrats, who had opposed civil rights by a 40% margin still hadn't come to terms with the fact they lost the party. George Wallace runs as independent to represent that racist white vote but ends up splitting it between him and Nixon. Carter won with southern black support and support from poor southern whites who had yet to cut off their noses to spit their faces. It was Reagan who convinced poor whites to support trickle down economics rather than social welfare because after the civil rights act black people had a legal right to those same benefits and you have the start of the welfare queen narration and the Republican strategy of convincing poor, racist, southern whites to vote against their economic interests because it would hurt poor blacks more.

It is funny though you clowns want to ignore the shift of black voters who were staunch Republicans after the civil war and emancipation and slowly over the first half of the 20th century transitioned to staunchly democratic voters.

 

[Curried Goats]

Exactly! Those who fly that flag, fly it as a symbol of REBELLION against an oppressive federal government that was NEVER supposed to be regulating every aspect of our lives.

The Democrats use it to work up the ignorant masses to foment HATE towards anyone who stands in the way of their fascist agenda

So you fly the symbol of a government that oppressed black people? That specifically left the Union to preserve the institution of slavery? That makes sense...

Hard to get more regulatory of peoples lives than government sponsored slavery.

 

[Curried Goats]

The southern strategy concept is pretty flawed when you look at the timing of the party switch in much of the South. Many Appalachian areas were Republican long before the Civil Rights Act, for example.

Even in a lot of the Solid South regions, local offices were dominated by Democrats up until the late 80s and early 90s. Presidential elections often switched earlier, but when considering that these same regions continued to elect Democratic Representatives and Senators until much later, the concept really doesn't hold up to reality.

The reason why Democrats started to lose the South in presidential elections really had more to do with how most Democratic candidates for president were from other parts of the country and typically had policies or values that weren't representative of the South. It wasn't specifically segregation related.

This is shown by how the most successful Democratic presidential candidates in the South in recent decades were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Both were Southerners and much more relatable to the South than various other candidates.

They won with southern black support.

 

[Curried Goats]

Why are you being such a faggot and just attacking Confederates? You've admitted that you hate the Founding Fathers just as much. When you are dishonest like that, are you admitting you are afraid of US.

Nope I'm just not stupid. We need to attack the Confederates first because they are more easily vilified and have less support among the general white population. Planting the seed that slaver Confederates shouldn't be venerated though opens us up to eventually being able to effectively expand that argument to the Founders. It's already happening. We're starting to see reckoning amoung the Jefferson estate for his support of slavery and his relationship with a teenage Sally Hemings as a 40 year old man. (Talk about groomers...)

Except, you have to lie to do it. That shows that you do not have the strong position that you pretend to have. You are bluffing.

Lie about what exactly? What have I said about the Founders that was a lie?

Oh, you are assuming that all non-white people are defined by just being non-white?

No, I'm assuming all non white people are more understanding of the effects of white racism because they've felt it.

Any how, you really think that the browns and yellows are going to put up with your shit, the way that stupid whites have/did?

Well when you openly call Asian people yellow, how hard do you think it would be to get them to come out against you?

I hope that I live long enough to see this blow up in your face adn the face of your kind.

Pussy.

I hope you love long enough to see your children pay me and mine reparations.

 

[Uriel]

No you moron. Again, you keep trying to make it about party and I'm talking about the southern white population. Let's break it down.

Goldwater won some southern States with his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights, (not because he was a racist, he supported previous civil rights acts, but over libertarian principles). Johnson, having signed the civil rights act into law garnered a lot of support from black voters who turned out in record numbers not to be seen again until Obama's election and I'm sure segregationist Democrats, who had opposed civil rights by a 40% margin still hadn't come to terms with the fact they lost the party. George Wallace runs as independent to represent that racist white vote but ends up splitting it between him and Nixon. Carter won with southern black support and support from poor southern whites who had yet to cut off their noses to spit their faces. It was Reagan who convinced poor whites to support trickle down economics rather than social welfare because after the civil rights act black people had a legal right to those same benefits and you have the start of the welfare queen narration and the Republican strategy of convincing poor, racist, southern whites to vote against their economic interests because it would hurt poor blacks more.

It is funny though you clowns want to ignore the shift of black voters who were staunch Republicans after the civil war and emancipation and slowly over the first half of the 20th century transitioned to staunchly democratic voters.

Some southern whites surely did react negatively to integration, but Carter's win in '76 isn't fully explained by blacks and those "who had yet to cut off their noses to spite their faces."

Ultimately, what southerners saw in the Democratic party on the national level was a shift toward urban interests and values that didn't resonate with the South. It's why Republicans were predominantly in the North and West even up to the late 80s. It's hard to imagine these days, but California had a lot of Republicans even in the 80s. It was not so dominated by Democrats at that time.

While it is true that the South historically supported populism (economically left policies with socially conservative policies), by the 80s, they embraced economically right policies. That's when you started to see local offices shift to Republicans. The Reagan era was the true era of party switching, which reached its peak in 1994. By that point in time, the change was complete. Democrats had become the party of the North and West Coast, while Republicans dominated the South.

It was a change in economic views along with social policy changes in both parties. Reagan very successfully marketed the GOP to the religious right, which had historically been Democratic.

 

[Uriel]

They won with southern black support.

Southern black support doesn't tell the whole story by any stretch.