Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday
- Thread starter Biff_Poindexter
- Start date
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,190
- 266,061
- 3,615
Ole Jeff Davis did well with the slave vote
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #303
Jefferson Davis will be referred to by his new name "J-Rocc" -- as a way to be hip and cool with the kids
.It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...
Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.
You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.
This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.
By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".
Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...
Russians, everywhere...
View attachment 305894
If you're not Russian, why are you deliberately writing like one?
If you're not ******, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.
"Russian" is not name-calling. It's a simple observation of your writing, specifically your inability to handle articles.
TBH, I have no clue how that "the" remained there. As I said, I am at work during the day, and when I catch the break I try to reply to posts. Sometimes lose track and change sentences because of distractions or simply being in rush, etc. I don't have to explain myself to you, and I wont.
Uh huh. You just did.
Lots of posters are busy on other stuff and/or post from work, myself included. Yours has been carrying a consistent Russian flavor. Just something I pick up on.
Those are not comparators. One is a nationality, the other a political party. You could be both.
Actually I'm citing history, and yes I will keep on doing it every time some revisionista like you tries to pervert it. And that's got nothing to do with sex, burning things, political parties or any of your sad shit. It has to do with basic honesty. Now if you don't want to be called out on mendacious bullshit, then don't post it in the first place. And fer fuxsake don't keep trotting out the same bogus mythology after it's already been disproven.
I already gave you Strom Thurmond. Now, Helms became Senator in '72. He became republican in '70, some 6 years after CRA was passed. It doesn't really fit into switching party because of CRA or because he was racist. Even if we count him, try to give 3 more... why is it so hard, if there was massive "party switch".
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,190
- 266,061
- 3,615
I read it and found it to be ridiculous
The voters turned on the Democrats, nobody had to “switch parties”
You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:
"Big switch"
You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.
The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).
Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.
So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.
/end post 50 paste
That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.
With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<
--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).
So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.
So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.
There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.
Last edited:
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
Will they curse the 10 Native American tribes who owned slaves and fought for the confederacy?
Of course not.
Lets discuss that. It is negro patronizing month after all.
Ohhhh wait!!! That would not fit the patronizing that is always designed to enslave the negro mind into thinking they are always the victim of white Christian capitalists.
So....
Not only would the stupid hypocritical dickbags on the left not answer that, they will ignore it or giggle. Giggle uncomfortably, but giggle nonetheless.
Why?
Cause they are all brainwashed losers.
Of course not.
Lets discuss that. It is negro patronizing month after all.
Ohhhh wait!!! That would not fit the patronizing that is always designed to enslave the negro mind into thinking they are always the victim of white Christian capitalists.
So....
Not only would the stupid hypocritical dickbags on the left not answer that, they will ignore it or giggle. Giggle uncomfortably, but giggle nonetheless.
Why?
Cause they are all brainwashed losers.
You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:
"Big switch"
In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.
The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).
Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.
So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.
/end post 50 paste
That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.
With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<
--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).
So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.
So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.
There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.
Your post #50 was reply to post #33.
Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.
Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.
****************
Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"
In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".
In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".
Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?
You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:
"Big switch"
In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.
The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).
Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.
So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.
/end post 50 paste
That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.
With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<
--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).
So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.
So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.
There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.
Your post #50 was reply to post #33.
Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.
Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.
****************
Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"
In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".
In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".
Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?
You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.
Theowl32
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2013
- 23,643
- 18,809
- 2,415
Don't think I don't notice you ignoring me and don't think for one second that I don't know why.
You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:
"Big switch"
In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.
The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).
Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.
So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.
/end post 50 paste
That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.
With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<
--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).
So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.
So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.
There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.
Your post #50 was reply to post #33.
Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.
Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.
****************
Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"
In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".
In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".
Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?
You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.
You pathetic hypocritical dirtbag loser.
Last edited:
Don't think I don't notice you ignoring men and don't think for one second that I don't know why.
You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:
"Big switch"
In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.
The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).
Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.
So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.
/end post 50 paste
That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.
With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<
--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).
So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.
So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.
There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.
Your post #50 was reply to post #33.
Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.
Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.
****************
Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"
In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".
In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".
Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?
You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.
You pathetic hypocritical dirtbag loser.
DING what's an example of a post that makes even less sense than the one it quotes for 600 Alex
Nothing in your post, supports your insane claim that genocide and slavery are the same thing.
THus, you have utterly failed to support your insane idea that the 19th slave holding agrarian rebellious Confederacy is the same as the 20th century totalitarian industrial wars of conquest genocidal state National Socialists.
THUS, your point that you dont' understand why two completely different situations have different outcomes,
is revealed to be more about your intellectual limitations, rather than any real, sane expectation that they should.
Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.
If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.
Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.
He just disagreed with your position. Did you not catch that? What is wrong with you?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,190
- 266,061
- 3,615
The forced labor of Nazi Germany and our beloved Confederacy are the same
Nazi Germany is not remembered for it's forced labor.
Vastly different situations had vastly different outcomes. No reasonable person is surprised by that.
Superbrother's position is utterly senseless.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,190
- 266,061
- 3,615
Virginia should dump it’s Lee/Jackson holiday and just get on to honoring Adolph Hitler
And you move to hide that fact that even you cannot defend Superbrothers absurd claim that genocide and slavery are the same thing.
Liberals such as yourselfs, are motivated by racism and bigotry, in your refusal to allow Southern Whites the Right to celebrate their heritage and culture.
You know this, which is why you are so dishonest.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
An LDS Apostle speaks on modern-day Anti-Christs among us
- Started by jacksonlamb
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
