CDZ Why Socialism/Communism/Authority Driven regimes succeed so well at first.

[alang1216]

My two cents:

Well in any system, there are those who benefit and those who don't. A system is stable, when there is a balance, the number of those who benefit is large enough and those who don't aren't too numerous and/or not screwed too badly.

When a system fails to find this balance, those who are at the losing end of that system will rise up sooner or later. Depending on the situation, one ideology or the other will give them a narrative for their discontentment and a purpose to overthrow the system. Like communists or fascists.

A free system, a republic like in the US, has the benefit that it gives much leeway for peaceful transition of power, so you can change the government without throwing the entire system out with the bathwater. That's a good thing, I'd say, because revolutions are usually bloody.

However, republics can fail to create such a balance, too. In that case, it gets dangerous.

My $0.02: I always thought the peaceful transition of power in the US was a given. I think Trump has done his best to make me rethink it. His baseless claims of election fraud have left many Americans (most seem to be here on USMB) feeling that Biden is not our legitimate president. That may be Trump's lasting legacy. The irony is his MAGA mantra may have done just the opposite.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

2- Now that a social catastrophe is happening, the authoritarians unleash their preplanned and premediated plans of disinformation and violence to scare a society. Their lust for control is all they know and want.

They manipulate and gain power slowly over the years and finally hook the working class in thinking the rich are evil and should be eliminated. All religious worship is frowned upon at first.

They indoctrinate schools and universities slowly over the decades until 2 generations are taught their country is evil and must be changed. Anyone who does not follow must be pointed out and destroyed for THE GREATER GOOD!!!!!

They manipulate one group against the other for yrs as the hatreds and lies boil over.

Then they try and overthrow authority and control, and breaking its resolve to mob violence.

Next. Turning a society against its past and try to destroy the evidence in writing and artifact. All for THE GREATER GOOD!!!

3- Now that social disaster and kais are rampant, a very seedy political class tightens a grip. These people are generally homicidal maniacs whos thirst for power and control has consumed their lives. They must seize their moment in history by the mayhem.

They are very good actors and promise people a Utopian Society where everything is paid for and everybody will live equally in harmony. Bread will be plentiful. Just listen to us and we will know what is best.

Remember, The Greater Good is all that matters. That is the theme of all this.

Next. Disarming a society to destroy and liquidate political enemies, antisocial elements, the intelligentsia, religious leaders, and anyone else deemed to be liquidated for the GREATER GOOD!!!!

 

[Bernhard]

Yes, I find that problematic, too ... a free system can only persist, when there is trust in its institutions. And elections are among the most basic of these institutions.

It appears very irresponsible to me to sow mistrust about free elections and not to accept its outcome. There was a time when America was a shining example for a free republican/democratic system for people all over the world, but what happens there now reminds me more of corrupt banana republics where the leaders are less interested in serving their country and more in working for their own egoistic ends.

However, I'd be glad if I could once again be able to look at America as the "leader of the free world".

 

[danielpalos]

1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

Sounds to me like your bunch is in more of a crisis than anyone else is. You not only lost but your Orange Deity is facing some pretty stiff charges upon leaving office. And many of his Criminals in Charge are going to be rounded up as well on some real serious charges. You should note that Barr is very, very quiet right now. Ever wonder why?

This has nothing to do with anything today. Let's say this was Russia in 1915.

Hey how about Cuba.......Yeah Cuba. My cousins wife is from Cuba. Her uncle disappeared in the middle of the night never to be seen or heard from again around 61. Her father fled by the skin of his teeth.

You are way off topic on this one friend.

Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.

It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?

lol. Right wingers used to vote democrat. Why are right wingers soo disingenuous?

 

[forkup]

1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.

 

[Bernhard]

1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.

Yes. It's a huge difference whether you're dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship where the government rules above the law and uses a secret police responsible to nobody to terrorize the people and where all private enterprises are nationalized and state run ... or a social democracy, where the constitutions guarantee freedom for all, private companies are still in private hands, just the taxes are a tiny bit too high for your taste. :/

 

[danielpalos]

1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.

Some on the left believe the former Soviet Union should have promoted the general welfare more than they did the general warfare.

Bread tractors for the People; socializing Costs is what Socialism is good for!

 

[$ecular#eckler]

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

It is a unique consequence of the evolution of mankind and government - sophistication.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx.

Perhaps, but I think your reference to Marxism is only because that is the only possible alternative that you know of.

Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust. Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

As you know, every patriot thinks they are sophisticated and open-minded by claiming that the almighty United States Constitution is not perfect, but hesitate to try to reorder the charter in an effort to approach perfection. And so, we endure tremendous corruption because of the inadequate separation of powers and balance of checks.

Nobody cares about their state and municipal governments, and the elected officials are more than happy that your attention is diverted. The federal elected officials keep you occupied with arguments, because otherwise you would question their necessity.

Whew. I typed a months worth

You should practice writing more

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.

Pretty good chance that before such a calamity the opposing political sides will seek to segregate, and reorder the charter system in light of the emerging new technology for ordering more reliable government.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[$ecular#eckler]

2- Now that a social catastrophe is happening, the authoritarians unleash their preplanned and premediated plans of disinformation and violence to scare a society. Their lust for control is all they know and want . . . Next. Turning a society against its past and try to destroy the evidence in writing and artifact. All for THE GREATER GOOD!!!

You make it sound as if you can prove that this is the way it always happens.

the difference in social sophistication is way different.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

3- Now that social disaster and kais are rampant, a very seedy political class tightens a grip. These people are generally homicidal maniacs whos thirst for power and control has consumed their lives. They must seize their moment in history by the mayhem.

They are very good actors and promise people a Utopian Society where everything is paid for and everybody will live equally in harmony. Bread will be plentiful. Just listen to us and we will know what is best.

Remember, The Greater Good is all that matters. That is the theme of all this.

Next. Disarming a society to destroy and liquidate political enemies, antisocial elements, the intelligentsia, religious leaders, and anyone else deemed to be liquidated for the GREATER GOOD!!!!

No possibility of anything else???

 

[sartre play]

just close the loopholes that help only the wealthy, Take the money out of politics so our leaders stop being bought.

 

[danielpalos]

just close the loopholes that help only the wealthy, Take the money out of politics so our leaders stop being bought.

Simple poverty could have been solved in the US, Yesterday but for right wing interference and obstruction. Equal protection of the laws in our at-will employment States is all that should be required to help automatically stabilize our economy in a market friendly manner.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.

It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?

You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.

Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.

Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.

Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.

1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"

and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quoteolitics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".

Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.

 

[alang1216]

Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.

It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?

You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.

Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.

Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.

Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.

1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"

and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quoteolitics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".

Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.

What you provided is absolutely true and completely besides the point. The Dems of old were what today we'd call conservatives. They were all for States Rights since that would enable them to have Jim Crow laws. As Northern liberal Democrats gained control of the party the GOP stepped in to fill the gap. The Dems were now in favor of national Civil Rights laws being applied to the States, while Goldwater's platform was the opposite.

It's true that the old Dems were for slavery and segregation but it is also true the old GOP was the party of Federal gov't supremacy over States and for reparations for Blacks. Doesn't sound like the GOP of today.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.

It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?

You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.

Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.

Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.

Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.

1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"

and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quoteolitics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".

Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.

What you provided is absolutely true and completely besides the point. The Dems of old were what today we'd call conservatives. They were all for States Rights since that would enable them to have Jim Crow laws. As Northern liberal Democrats gained control of the party the GOP stepped in to fill the gap. The Dems were now in favor of national Civil Rights laws being applied to the States, while Goldwater's platform was the opposite.

It's true that the old Dems were for slavery and segregation but it is also true the old GOP was the party of Federal gov't supremacy over States and for reparations for Blacks. Doesn't sound like the GOP of today.

Still waiting for a refutation of my long post proving Democrats in 1860 are still the same democrats by party affiliation of the 1960's.

You didn't bother to learn about the long winded 1957 filibuster by the ALWAYS Democrat Robert Byrd, and again in 1964. Byrd was always a Democrat from the late 1940's to his death in 2010.

It was Democrats who at first tried to stop the 1964 Civil rights act from getting on the floor in the first place, then when NORTHERN Democrats led by Mike Mansfield, overcame the southern democrat opposition, it finally got on the floor for a vote where the REPUBLICANS voted yes at an 82% rate to the Democrats 69% rate.

You need to drop this party doppelgänger nonsense, since there is zero evidence of it.

 

[Bernhard]

Didn't short-lived populist parties split off from the Democrats, when they embraced pro-civil rights policies?

I vaguely remember having read about "Dixiecrats" or such.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Didn't short-lived populist parties split off from the Democrats, when they embraced pro-civil rights policies?

I vaguely remember having read about "Dixiecrats" or such.

A short lived DEMOCRAT group who opposed racial integration policies.

From Wikipedia:


"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern conservative white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats were determined to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.[1]

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

Despite the Dixiecrat's success in several states, Truman was narrowly re-elected. After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.[2] The Dixiecrats presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. The Dixiecrats represented the weakening of the "Solid South". (This referred to the Southern Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South and most seats in Congress, partly through decades of disenfranchisement of blacks since the turn of the century. Blacks had formerly been aligned with the Republican Party before being excluded from politics in the region, but during the Great Migration African Americans had found the Democratic Party in the North and West more suited to their interests.)"

LINK

 

[Bernhard]

Didn't short-lived populist parties split off from the Democrats, when they embraced pro-civil rights policies?

I vaguely remember having read about "Dixiecrats" or such.

A short lived DEMOCRAT group who opposed racial integration policies.

From Wikipedia:


"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern conservative white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats were determined to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.[1]

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

Despite the Dixiecrat's success in several states, Truman was narrowly re-elected. After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.[2] The Dixiecrats presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. The Dixiecrats represented the weakening of the "Solid South". (This referred to the Southern Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South and most seats in Congress, partly through decades of disenfranchisement of blacks since the turn of the century. Blacks had formerly been aligned with the Republican Party before being excluded from politics in the region, but during the Great Migration African Americans had found the Democratic Party in the North and West more suited to their interests.)"

LINK

It's fascinating how the two parties could flip their voter bases so easily within just a few years, after the 60s.

Makes me wonder what will happen in the future. Some claimed the Democrats have a huge demographic advantage, because the number of non-whites who traditionally vote Democrats is increasing steadily ... and soon, it will be hard for Republicans to still win elections with the "white vote".

But my guess is that party affiliations will be more dynamic ... for example, there are many Catholic Latinos who in theory hold rather conservative views. And they only vote for the Democrats, because the Republicans flirt too much with whites who dislike Latinos.

So if the Republicans are smart, they'll find ways to better address ethnic minorities in the future and keep the party balance intact.

 

[alang1216]

Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.

It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?

You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.

Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.

Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.

Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.

1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"

and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quoteolitics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".

Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.

What you provided is absolutely true and completely besides the point. The Dems of old were what today we'd call conservatives. They were all for States Rights since that would enable them to have Jim Crow laws. As Northern liberal Democrats gained control of the party the GOP stepped in to fill the gap. The Dems were now in favor of national Civil Rights laws being applied to the States, while Goldwater's platform was the opposite.

It's true that the old Dems were for slavery and segregation but it is also true the old GOP was the party of Federal gov't supremacy over States and for reparations for Blacks. Doesn't sound like the GOP of today.

Still waiting for a refutation of my long post proving Democrats in 1860 are still the same democrats by party affiliation of the 1960's.

You didn't bother to learn about the long winded 1957 filibuster by the ALWAYS Democrat Robert Byrd, and again in 1964. Byrd was always a Democrat from the late 1940's to his death in 2010.

It was Democrats who at first tried to stop the 1964 Civil rights act from getting on the floor in the first place, then when NORTHERN Democrats led by Mike Mansfield, overcame the southern democrat opposition, it finally got on the floor for a vote where the REPUBLICANS voted yes at an 82% rate to the Democrats 69% rate.

You need to drop this party doppelgänger nonsense, since there is zero evidence of it.

You are delusional or still living in the last century. Until the end of Jim Crow, the South was solid Dem. Were those KKK supporters liberals? The South today is solid GOP, are they liberals?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Didn't short-lived populist parties split off from the Democrats, when they embraced pro-civil rights policies?

I vaguely remember having read about "Dixiecrats" or such.

A short lived DEMOCRAT group who opposed racial integration policies.

From Wikipedia:


"The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party. After President Harry S. Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, ordered integration of the military in 1948 and other actions to address civil rights of African Americans, many Southern conservative white politicians who objected to this course organized themselves as a breakaway faction. The Dixiecrats were determined to protect Southern states' rights to maintain racial segregation.[1]

Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

Despite the Dixiecrat's success in several states, Truman was narrowly re-elected. After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.[2] The Dixiecrats presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. The Dixiecrats represented the weakening of the "Solid South". (This referred to the Southern Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South and most seats in Congress, partly through decades of disenfranchisement of blacks since the turn of the century. Blacks had formerly been aligned with the Republican Party before being excluded from politics in the region, but during the Great Migration African Americans had found the Democratic Party in the North and West more suited to their interests.)"

LINK

It's fascinating how the two parties could flip their voter bases so easily within just a few years, after the 60s.

Makes me wonder what will happen in the future. Some claimed the Democrats have a huge demographic advantage, because the number of non-whites who traditionally vote Democrats is increasing steadily ... and soon, it will be hard for Republicans to still win elections with the "white vote".

But my guess is that party affiliations will be more dynamic ... for example, there are many Catholic Latinos who in theory hold rather conservative views. And they only vote for the Democrats, because the Republicans flirt too much with whites who dislike Latinos.

So if the Republicans are smart, they'll find ways to better address ethnic minorities in the future and keep the party balance intact.

It is fascinating you ignore a lot of hard evidence I posted, in fact you IGNORED them completely.

Goodbye.