Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
What's old is new again.
You Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant
- Thread starter Tank
- Start date
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 36,038
- 9,459
- 1,340
That was not the question. You simply created one that did not exist. ,And you are ass kicked above. More Dems voted for it than Repubs.. Southern Repubs opposed it completely. So the northern and western Dems joined by the northern and western Repubs beat down the southern Dems and Repubs.
And you lied about: "Do you deny the GOP % of southern reps and Senators were higher than southern Dems in Congress in voting against the CR and voting rights" The Repubs in the South opposed it 100%, unlike the Dems.
Correll, you couldn't get through a history class, could you, on CR?
The Dems controlled both HOuse of Congress at that time. There were simply more Dems in office than Republicans, especially from the South.
You left that out. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading....
There weren't to many Southern REpublicans, and yes, the few that were, did ALL vote against it.
My point about the GOP nationally supporting the act by a higher percentage is true. YOu are focusing on the Regional Turnout because you can distract from that.
Question: Can you explain to me why, speaking of an hypothetical racist White Democrat of the time, would such a person offended by the dem support of the Civil Rights Act, leave them to go to the Party that more strongly supported that same bill?
Two old white people kissing race baiter Al Sharpton's ring for votes. How low Democrats have sunk.
Obama supporters had a more experienced option who held mostly the same policy positions, Hillary.
Nationalist Republicans who support Trump because of his Immigration and Trade policies do not have another option with policy positions as good.
Hitler's small dick made it easier for his top advisors and followers to take him in their ass.
That they are allowed and even encouraged to actively pursue their interests was the whole of my point.
Thanks for agreeing.
As to why, blacks, back then in 1909, faced real discrimination, both legal and informal.
Why do you ask?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #129
And you answered the question. I am glad you agree with me. The regional turn out is why the % against was higher for Dems although their numbers were more for passage. The fact is that the Dems led the way and the pubs were right to join them. To your last question: the Southeern Strategy as explained byThat was not the question. You simply created one that did not exist. ,And you are ass kicked above. More Dems voted for it than Repubs.. Southern Repubs opposed it completely. So the northern and western Dems joined by the northern and western Repubs beat down the southern Dems and Repubs.
And you lied about: "Do you deny the GOP % of southern reps and Senators were higher than southern Dems in Congress in voting against the CR and voting rights" The Repubs in the South opposed it 100%, unlike the Dems.
Correll, you couldn't get through a history class, could you, on CR?
The Dems controlled both HOuse of Congress at that time. There were simply more Dems in office than Republicans, especially from the South.
You left that out. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading....
There weren't to many Southern REpublicans, and yes, the few that were, did ALL vote against it.
My point about the GOP nationally supporting the act by a higher percentage is true. YOu are focusing on the Regional Turnout because you can distract from that.
Question: Can you explain to me why, speaking of an hypothetical racist White Democrat of the time, would such a person offended by the dem support of the Civil Rights Act, leave them to go to the Party that more strongly supported that same bill?
During the 1950s and 1960s, the African-American Civil Rights Movement achieved significant progress in its push for desegregation in the Southern United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, largely dismantled the system of Jim Crow laws that had enforced legal (or de jure) segregation in the South since the end of Reconstruction Era. During this period, Republican politicians such as Presidential candidate Richard Nixon worked to attract southern white conservative voters (most of whom had traditionally supported the Democratic Party) to the Republican Party,[4] and Senator Barry Goldwaterwon the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South: (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, andSouth Carolina) in the 1964 presidential election. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon won Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, all former Confederate states, contributing to theelectoral realignment that saw many white, southern voters shift allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during this period.
In academia, the term "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy." This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather of overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, has made it difficult for the Republican Party to win the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005,Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14] Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hitler's small dick made it easier for his top advisors and followers to take him in their ass.
Good photography.
Come in very close, and look up at them.
Gives the illusion of a crowd.
Note that you can't see the edge of this gathering.
Probably because it doesn't serve the agenda to show that the biggest Crowd the Nazi can come up with today is lucky if they can break into double digits.
IF they shot these photos the way they do of real crowds, you would see a couple of guys standing in front of a building, outnumbered by the Press and the Cops.
And you answered the question. I am glad you agree with me. The regional turn out is why the % against was higher for Dems although their numbers were more for passage. The fact is that the Dems led the way and the pubs were right to join them. To your last question: the Southeern Strategy as explained byThat was not the question. You simply created one that did not exist. ,And you are ass kicked above. More Dems voted for it than Repubs.. Southern Repubs opposed it completely. So the northern and western Dems joined by the northern and western Repubs beat down the southern Dems and Repubs.
And you lied about: "Do you deny the GOP % of southern reps and Senators were higher than southern Dems in Congress in voting against the CR and voting rights" The Repubs in the South opposed it 100%, unlike the Dems.
Correll, you couldn't get through a history class, could you, on CR?
The Dems controlled both HOuse of Congress at that time. There were simply more Dems in office than Republicans, especially from the South.
You left that out. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading....
There weren't to many Southern REpublicans, and yes, the few that were, did ALL vote against it.
My point about the GOP nationally supporting the act by a higher percentage is true. YOu are focusing on the Regional Turnout because you can distract from that.
Question: Can you explain to me why, speaking of an hypothetical racist White Democrat of the time, would such a person offended by the dem support of the Civil Rights Act, leave them to go to the Party that more strongly supported that same bill?
During the 1950s and 1960s, the African-American Civil Rights Movement achieved significant progress in its push for desegregation in the Southern United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, largely dismantled the system of Jim Crow laws that had enforced legal (or de jure) segregation in the South since the end of Reconstruction Era. During this period, Republican politicians such as Presidential candidate Richard Nixon worked to attract southern white conservative voters (most of whom had traditionally supported the Democratic Party) to the Republican Party,[4] and Senator Barry Goldwaterwon the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South: (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, andSouth Carolina) in the 1964 presidential election. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon won Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, all former Confederate states, contributing to theelectoral realignment that saw many white, southern voters shift allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during this period.
In academia, the term "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy." This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather of overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, has made it difficult for the Republican Party to win the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005,Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14] Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Can you support your claim that the dems led the way on the bill?
2. Nothing in the rest of your long post explains HOW the GOP supposedly "worked to attract" worked to attract southern whites, especially in a "racial" way.
3. The strong support the national GOP gave to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in no way shows a party trying to pander to white racists.
That in no way denies anything in the OP.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #134
As they did in 1964.
But certainly not now.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #136
And you answered the question. I am glad you agree with me. The regional turn out is why the % against was higher for Dems although their numbers were more for passage. The fact is that the Dems led the way and the pubs were right to join them. To your last question: the Southeern Strategy as explained byThat was not the question. You simply created one that did not exist. ,And you are ass kicked above. More Dems voted for it than Repubs.. Southern Repubs opposed it completely. So the northern and western Dems joined by the northern and western Repubs beat down the southern Dems and Repubs.
And you lied about: "Do you deny the GOP % of southern reps and Senators were higher than southern Dems in Congress in voting against the CR and voting rights" The Repubs in the South opposed it 100%, unlike the Dems.
Correll, you couldn't get through a history class, could you, on CR?
The Dems controlled both HOuse of Congress at that time. There were simply more Dems in office than Republicans, especially from the South.
You left that out. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading....
There weren't to many Southern REpublicans, and yes, the few that were, did ALL vote against it.
My point about the GOP nationally supporting the act by a higher percentage is true. YOu are focusing on the Regional Turnout because you can distract from that.
Question: Can you explain to me why, speaking of an hypothetical racist White Democrat of the time, would such a person offended by the dem support of the Civil Rights Act, leave them to go to the Party that more strongly supported that same bill?
During the 1950s and 1960s, the African-American Civil Rights Movement achieved significant progress in its push for desegregation in the Southern United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, largely dismantled the system of Jim Crow laws that had enforced legal (or de jure) segregation in the South since the end of Reconstruction Era. During this period, Republican politicians such as Presidential candidate Richard Nixon worked to attract southern white conservative voters (most of whom had traditionally supported the Democratic Party) to the Republican Party,[4] and Senator Barry Goldwaterwon the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South: (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, andSouth Carolina) in the 1964 presidential election. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon won Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, all former Confederate states, contributing to theelectoral realignment that saw many white, southern voters shift allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during this period.
In academia, the term "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy." This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather of overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, has made it difficult for the Republican Party to win the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005,Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14] Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Can you support your claim that the dems led the way on the bill?
2. Nothing in the rest of your long post explains HOW the GOP supposedly "worked to attract" worked to attract southern whites, especially in a "racial" way.
3. The strong support the national GOP gave to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in no way shows a party trying to pander to white racists.
1. Of course. JFK proposed it, LBJ picked up the cause and the Dems led the way. You showed your weakness of argument by glomming on to the cloture vote while ignoring the fact that vote was determined by geography not party.
2. The premise explains the "why". The outcome explains the "how." If you are interested in the particulars, go for it.
3. No one said it did. But the way our GOP has evolved on race matters in the last fifty years is explained by the quotation.
4. You can't explain the shift of white racists to the GOP any other way. If you can, be specific.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #137
Or thousands of stories of whites doing it to whites? Grow the **** up, you coward.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #138
Explain why you think so? Be specific.
NLT
Platinum Member
- Nov 21, 2011
- 32,150
- 6,878
- 1,170
And you answered the question. I am glad you agree with me. The regional turn out is why the % against was higher for Dems although their numbers were more for passage. The fact is that the Dems led the way and the pubs were right to join them. To your last question: the Southeern Strategy as explained byThat was not the question. You simply created one that did not exist. ,And you are ass kicked above. More Dems voted for it than Repubs.. Southern Repubs opposed it completely. So the northern and western Dems joined by the northern and western Repubs beat down the southern Dems and Repubs.
And you lied about: "Do you deny the GOP % of southern reps and Senators were higher than southern Dems in Congress in voting against the CR and voting rights" The Repubs in the South opposed it 100%, unlike the Dems.
Correll, you couldn't get through a history class, could you, on CR?
The Dems controlled both HOuse of Congress at that time. There were simply more Dems in office than Republicans, especially from the South.
You left that out. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading....
There weren't to many Southern REpublicans, and yes, the few that were, did ALL vote against it.
My point about the GOP nationally supporting the act by a higher percentage is true. YOu are focusing on the Regional Turnout because you can distract from that.
Question: Can you explain to me why, speaking of an hypothetical racist White Democrat of the time, would such a person offended by the dem support of the Civil Rights Act, leave them to go to the Party that more strongly supported that same bill?
During the 1950s and 1960s, the African-American Civil Rights Movement achieved significant progress in its push for desegregation in the Southern United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, largely dismantled the system of Jim Crow laws that had enforced legal (or de jure) segregation in the South since the end of Reconstruction Era. During this period, Republican politicians such as Presidential candidate Richard Nixon worked to attract southern white conservative voters (most of whom had traditionally supported the Democratic Party) to the Republican Party,[4] and Senator Barry Goldwaterwon the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South: (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, andSouth Carolina) in the 1964 presidential election. In the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon won Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, all former Confederate states, contributing to theelectoral realignment that saw many white, southern voters shift allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party during this period.
In academia, the term "southern strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the south, which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white southerners' racial resentments in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the southern strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed southern politics following the civil rights era.[6][7] This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy." This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South,[8] but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs, rather of overt resistance to racial integration, and that the story of this backlash is a national, rather than a strictly southern one.[9][10][11][12]
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South," particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, has made it difficult for the Republican Party to win the support of black voters in the South in later years.[4] In 2005,Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.[13][14] Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Can you support your claim that the dems led the way on the bill?
2. Nothing in the rest of your long post explains HOW the GOP supposedly "worked to attract" worked to attract southern whites, especially in a "racial" way.
3. The strong support the national GOP gave to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in no way shows a party trying to pander to white racists.
1. Of course. JFK proposed it, LBJ picked up the cause and the Dems led the way. You showed your weakness of argument by glomming on to the cloture vote while ignoring the fact that vote was determined by geography not party.
2. The premise explains the "why". The outcome explains the "how." If you are interested in the particulars, go for it.
3. No one said it did. But the way our GOP has evolved on race matters in the last fifty years is explained by the quotation.
4. You can't explain the shift of white racists to the GOP any other way. If you can, be specific.
1. "On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, Senate Minority LeaderEverett Dirksen and Senate Majority LeaderMike Mansfield both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered. "
Sounds like JFK was working as much with the GOP congressmen as DEMS.
2. No, the Premise explains the "what" claimed. The outcome explains nothing. The "how" is never explained, especially in the light of the Strong support the GOP gave to Civil Rights. Particulars? NOTHING has been offered to show the alleged pandering to racists.
3. THe support of the Civil Rights Act, which supposedly drove the racists away from the dems, would have been just as much, if not MORE of a problem for any racist looking for a home with the GOP.
3B The quotation makes an unsupported claim.
4. I can and have repeatedly explained the shift of the South in "other" way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0
" In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P.
Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. "
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The scale of the damage done to Iran so far, put into perspective.- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 10
-
-
Turning Point USA college president resigns after racist text chat leaks- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 6
-
-
People in New York protesting Mamdani were met with counterprotesters who turned out to be Islamic terrorists.- Started by Votto
- Replies: 17
