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

[Correll]

Some northern elites were motivated by abolitionism, but it wasn't that widespread among working class northerners other than a few religious groups. Most working class northerners were more focused on making a living or dealing with the consequences of industrialization.

Do you think that if he had been honest about how determined he was to end slavery, that he would have won the election?

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan has more privilege than me. Any racism he endures is surely resolved by his wealth and connections.

So all a black person has to do to have more privilege than a random white guy is to be the greatest basketball player ever. Kind of making our point for us.

 

[Curried Goats]

I don't have a problem with comforting and de-escalation, but what is often done in some schools is propagandizing about gender identity.

If they are propagandizing anything it's acceptance.

Children are highly impressionable, which is precisely why certain activists in the LGBT lobby target children. It's a numbers game for them. They pretend it's a matter of encouraging people to come out of the closet, but in reality, it's grooming when done to children.

There is no evidence of wide spread grooming going on among LGBT lobbyists. The largest cases of child grooming in this country were done by the Catholic Church, the Mormon church, the boyscouts and Slavers who would frequently rape their young female slaves and under the one drop rule, sell their children off to other Slavers so they could do the same. Sally Hemings was the product of Slaver on slave rape as was her mother, her grandmother and her children. Grooming is typically done by people trying to hide their intentions, not those openly promoting inclusion, personal and social acceptance.

What the left is reluctant to admit is that sexuality and gender identity are highly environmental and socially influenced. This is shown throughout history by cultural differences.

Why would the people who are most likely to understand that gender is a social construct, be reluctant to admit that notions of gender are influenced by society?

For example, we don't consider pedophilia to be acceptable, but it was acceptable for the Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks. This was possible due to normalization of pedophilia by those cultures. By the same token, our culture took measures to stigmatize it.

Only recently. It's still legal in some red states to marry children with their parents consent. It's important though to understand pedophilia and homosexuality and gender nonconformity are all very different things. Most obviously, a person's attraction to the same sex or rejection of gender norms aren't assaults committed against innocent children as pedophilia is. Lumping them into the same argument is disengeneous. There are all sorts of cultural norms from other societies or eras of this one that all decent and intelligent people should reject under the understanding that they violate the free will and safety of others.

Gender identity and homosexuality are no different. Influencing society to be more accepting of homosexuality, gender dysphoria, or non-binary identities for adults is one thing. Encouraging it among children is quite another.

Of course they are. There is nothing wrong with being gay or non binary so there should be nothing wrong with talking about these topics openly, even with children. There is something wrong with trying to fuck children.

Young children can go through strange phases for any number of reasons, but it's not usually a matter of gender dysphoria. And even when it is gender dysphoria, puberty blockers are an extreme measure that should not be taken 99% of the time. Sex reassignment surgery is completely absurd to perform on a young child as well.

You yourself said earlier those decisions should be left up to parents and doctors, well most medical professionals and pediatric groups would acknowledge the benefit of hormone blockers as an acceptable method of treating some (not all) cases of gender dysphoria. Very rarely would they recommend reassignment surgery except in extreme cases of intersexuality. (Children born with both male and female sex organs).

But ultimately, this has become an issue because the LGBT lobby sees the power in converting future generations to their group. It's no different from what you'd expect from a political or religious group, but the consequences are far more severe.

People are born gay. They aren't born political or religious but they are born gay so no, the LGBT community has no need to recruit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

" Again, you keep trying to make it about party"

You can run, but you can't hide.
So Saith the Brown Bomber.



You said your party was 'wonderful' in terms of the following:
In answer to this….. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.





Now......which is your favorite?



“I don't know, it all sounds pretty wonderful to me.”

Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact post #69

 

[Curried Goats]

" Again, you keep trying to make it about party"

You can run, but you can't hide.
So Saith the Brown Bomber.



You said your party was 'wonderful' in terms of the following:
In answer to this….. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.





Now......which is your favorite?



“I don't know, it all sounds pretty wonderful to me.”

Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact post #69

Why don't we just start with one. I'm not against free speech, you simply don't understand what your right to free speech entails.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The change in economic values was due to blacks receiving equal rights. So long as welfare was segregated, like under FDR, the white southern population supported it.

Time to give you another spanking.......you know it hurts me to have to do this.....but.....noblesse oblige....




1. The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, Democrats nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights [1946-1965], giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the Democratic Solid South; following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (formerly a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use coded appeals to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is tainted by a continuous reliance on that same strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.



But the reality is quite different from the myth.
2. At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home.

The truth, … is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, … What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and the Democrats’ use of racial issues. In other words, if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers. “ The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority






3. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.




4. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….
Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’”
"Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203





5. ”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



This was Nixon’s “silent majority,” the ordinary Americans whom Nixon said worked hard and played by the rules and didn’t complain or set fire to anything and, precisely for this reason, had been ignored and even reviled by the Democratic Party.”
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness





6. Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.



Of course, you're still a racist.....er, Democrat, huh?



Be sure to let me know when you need your next.....'discipline.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

You should tell Tucker, he seems confused.

Let's review the term, just to prove how wrong you are.

This is what the Democrats claim Replacement Theory is:
The catch phrase used by the demented shooter in Buffalo is "replEacement theory," and here is NPR's definition:
"...the "Great Replacement" is a conspiracy theory that states that non-white individuals are being brought into the United States and other Western countries to "replace" white voters to achieve a political agenda. It is often touted by anti-immigration groups, white supremacists and others, according to the National Immigration Forum." (NPR)


Now......I don't watch Fox News or Tucker Carlson, but if that maniac killed black people based on the above.....

...then it is the Democrats who are responsible for the slaughter.




This is what Replacement theory is:
"Republican objections to the Democrat plan would be exactly the same if Democrats were importing blonde-haired blue-eyed yodeling Scandinavians to shift the US electorate to the Left. In medieval scholastic terminology, what Republicans object to is only per accidens, not per se (accidentally, not essentially) about race. Republicans object to the importation of a political persuasion, not a specific race, into the country in order to achieve political power. It is only the Democrat’s explicit racist plan to use “persons of color” to shift the demographics to secure their hold on power that brings race into the issue!"

The Latest Hoax By Democrats And Their Media... Great Replacement Theory​

Democrats claim that they are not using mass immigration to shift the demographics of America while simultaneously doing exactly that.

thebluestateconservative.com

 

[Curried Goats]

Time to give you another spanking.......you know it hurts me to have to do this.....but.....noblesse oblige....




1. The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, Democrats nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights [1946-1965], giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the Democratic Solid South; following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (formerly a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use coded appeals to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is tainted by a continuous reliance on that same strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.



But the reality is quite different from the myth.
2. At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home.

The truth, … is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, … What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and the Democrats’ use of racial issues. In other words, if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers. “ The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority






3. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.




4. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….
Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’”
"Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203





5. ”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



This was Nixon’s “silent majority,” the ordinary Americans whom Nixon said worked hard and played by the rules and didn’t complain or set fire to anything and, precisely for this reason, had been ignored and even reviled by the Democratic Party.”
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness





6. Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.



Of course, you're still a racist.....er, Democrat, huh?



Be sure to let me know when you need your next.....'discipline.'

I didn't even bother to read that cut and paste argument because it starts off telling me what my own argument supposedly is. I don't think LBJ was noble, I think he was pragmatic. So right off the jump your cut and paste argument is worthless. Care to try to make your own argument and respond to mine, rather than these cut and paste jobs of strawmen arguments?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I bet you think white privilege isn't a thing.

Only fools believe that lie.

Let's prove it together.

1. Can you name any law, statute, government rule, that favors white folks????


Of course you can't.


The only way you can support it is by the the numbers of any particular job or profession. Let's examine that 'proof.'

2. The most brainless posters will simply claim all sorts of white privilege, white supremacy, systemic racism.......but are shocked if you ask them for any evidence.
When pressed......this is the best they can do: a particular Democrat lap-dog wrote this-

“White Privilege is evident in the distribution of wealth and power in America, historically-based and perpetuated via laws, educational advantages, inherited wealth, Good Ol' Boy networks, racial prejudices, etc., but some Whites are disgruntled because they do not believe they share in it.”
The Myth Of White Privilege post #77

Get that? The percentage of minorities in any outcome proves racism.
And....that there are laws that enforce this!



3. First lie….there are no such laws in America.
But government school grads claim such. They're taught to lie.

Second is that blacks, minorities, are in any way prevented from choosing any profession, career, or endeavor to earn a living. Each category has its own requirements, and none are skin color (other than restricting white folks).



4. Thomas Sowell evinced amusement at the idea that percentages in any job show racism.

"If there were a contest for the most stupid idea in politics, my choice would be the assumption that people would be evenly or randomly distributed in incomes, institutions, occupations or awards, in the absence of somebody doing somebody wrong."​

Thomas Sowell - The Dumbest Idea​

5. When Democrat Judge Sotomayor wrote that a city can toss out the results of a fireman's exam based on the percentages of each race that passed the test......all nine Supreme Court Justices reamed her as follows:

Ricci decision: all nine Supreme Court Justices criticized her decision, saying that summary judgment was inappropriate, and should have been judged on the facts.​

"All nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone." None adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination. This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."​

One moment, please...​

Of course, she was immediately picked to be a Supreme Court Justice by the Democrats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only if one is white.

Answer this, you dunce:


Right here in America, which race has the highest income, highest educational attainment, lowest incarceration rate?


It isn't whites......but don't let the facts interfere with your indoctrination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So all a black person has to do to have more privilege than a random white guy is to be the greatest basketball player ever. Kind of making our point for us.

Now that you bring that up, perhaps you can answer this query:


With respect to the education gap, how is it that 'racism' or 'white privilege' or whatever the jargon is, is responsible for these areas in which black students fall short when compared to white and Asian students:

The number of days absent from school

The number of hours spent watching TV

The number of pages read for homework

Quantity and quality of reading material in the home

The presence of two parents in the home.

How does 'racism' explain these ...deficiencies????



I await your insight with bated breath.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't we just start with one. I'm not against free speech, you simply don't understand what your right to free speech entails.

Wasn't this your exact response???




In answer to this….. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.





Now......which is your favorite?



“I don't know, it all sounds pretty wonderful to me.”

Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact post #69




English is not my first language.....but I believe I understand the word "all."



How about you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I didn't even bother to read that cut and paste argument because it starts off telling me what my own argument supposedly is. I don't think LBJ was noble, I think he was pragmatic. So right off the jump your cut and paste argument is worthless. Care to try to make your own argument and respond to mine, rather than these cut and paste jobs of strawmen arguments?

See....now you're making me explain why I run circles around you.

OK>>>>


I have noted, of late, that some opponents have chosen a tortuous route to arguing against my post: rather than substance, they (you) have chosen style as the tactic.



The reason may be

1. harboring the desire to attack, they have neither the ability nor the ammunition to deal with the point.
2. they are lacking in the educational training of developing an argumentative essay.

Some pointers.

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm#LinkReason)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf






This will be very helpful if you ever get to college.

 

[Curried Goats]

Now that you bring that up, perhaps you can answer this query:


With respect to the education gap, how is it that 'racism' or 'white privilege' or whatever the jargon is, is responsible for these areas in which black students fall short when compared to white and Asian students:

The number of days absent from school

The number of hours spent watching TV

The number of pages read for homework

Quantity and quality of reading material in the home

The presence of two parents in the home.

How does 'racism' explain these ...deficiencies????



I await your insight with bated breath.

Well that's a fairly complicated issue that has to do with economic wealth disparities, red lining, racist housing policies, tying public school budgets to property taxes leaving poor communities underfunded, and disportionately brutal police forces. Basically racist whites (on both sides of the isles) shuffled poor blacks into urban ghettos, locked them in there, divested from their communities and sent armed thugs in to rough up and intimidate them. What do you think the outcome of all that would be?

 

[Curried Goats]

See....now you're making me explain why I run circles around you.

OK>>>>


I have noted, of late, that some opponents have chosen a tortuous route to arguing against my post: rather than substance, they (you) have chosen style as the tactic.



The reason may be

1. harboring the desire to attack, they have neither the ability nor the ammunition to deal with the point.
2. they are lacking in the educational training of developing an argumentative essay.

Some pointers.

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm#LinkReason)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf






This will be very helpful if you ever get to college.

I cut and paste sources that support my arguments, I don't cut and paste entire arguments that include strawmen arguments for them to easily cut down.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wasn't this your exact response???




In answer to this….. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism,

socialism,

infanticide,

opposition to free speech,

standing with criminals and felons rather than law-abiding citizens

substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry,

support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists,

accepting payment from Communist China for future considerations,

and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.





Now......which is your favorite?



“I don't know, it all sounds pretty wonderful to me.”

Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact post #69




English is not my first language.....but I believe I understand the word "all."



How about you?

That all sounds pretty wonderful to me was a flippant response to your ridiculous list.

As I said you can't even prove you understand even one of those issues. I have no confidence you understand what your free speech rights even are and certainly no confidence you could articulate a way in which I am trying to violate them.

 

[Jets]

Time to give you another spanking.......you know it hurts me to have to do this.....but.....noblesse oblige....




1. The basic “Southern Strategy” myth, popularized by Kevin Phillips in the early 1970s, goes like this: under LBJ’s leadership, Democrats nobly and self-sacrificingly supported civil rights [1946-1965], giving an opening to opportunistic Republicans to crack the Democratic Solid South; following the support given by voters in some Deep South states to Goldwater in 1964, Nixon (formerly a supporter of civil rights) developed a “Southern Strategy” to use coded appeals to southern whites, enabling him to win the 1968 election; and everything the GOP has accomplished since 1968 is tainted by a continuous reliance on that same strategy to keep white southerners in the fold.



But the reality is quite different from the myth.
2. At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home.

The truth, … is the opposite: the growth of GOP support among white Southerners was steady and mostly gradual from 1928 to 2010, … What retarded the Southern switch from the Democrats to the GOP was a combination of party loyalties dating back to Reconstruction and the Democrats’ use of racial issues. In other words, if you take race out of the picture, it’s likely that white Southerners would have switched parties earlier and in greater numbers. “ The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority






3. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.




4. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….
Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’”
"Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203





5. ”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



This was Nixon’s “silent majority,” the ordinary Americans whom Nixon said worked hard and played by the rules and didn’t complain or set fire to anything and, precisely for this reason, had been ignored and even reviled by the Democratic Party.”
The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness





6. Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.



Of course, you're still a racist.....er, Democrat, huh?



Be sure to let me know when you need your next.....'discipline.'

Interesting.

Another specious argument explaining why the GOP became the dominant party in the South…

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well that's a fairly complicated issue that has to do with economic wealth disparities, red lining, racist housing policies, tying public school budgets to property taxes leaving poor communities underfunded, and disportionately brutal police forces. Basically racist whites (on both sides of the isles) shuffled poor blacks into urban ghettos, locked them in there, divested from their communities and sent armed thugs in to rough up and intimidate them. What do you think the outcome of all that would be?

I have no problem explaining it........

What I have said is that the Democrats/Liberals have done so, largely by
a. abandoning marriage and normalizing out of wedlock births
b. removing punishments for lawlessness as though all black Americans are criminals.
c. never criticizing the psychopathologies that too many black youths mirror.
d. demanding that thugs and criminals be kept in government school.
e. lying about police and whites in general.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I cut and paste sources that support my arguments, I don't cut and paste entire arguments that include strawmen arguments for them to easily cut down.

No, I don't believe you do.

But.....if you had the ability.....you would.

I just happen to be better educated, smarter......and right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That all sounds pretty wonderful to me was a flippant response to your ridiculous list.

As I said you can't even prove you understand even one of those issues. I have no confidence you understand what your free speech rights even are and certainly no confidence you could articulate a way in which I am trying to violate them.

Wait.....it this your attempt to retreat from what you said??????



So sorry......I won't allow it.

In the future.....be more circumspect and judicious in your claims, and I won't have to spank you with them.