 
     |
| William Penn -- Cancelled (Page 7/22) |
|
BingB
|
JAN 16, 04:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
There was no flip. |
|
Yes there was. In fact it was the swiftest and most dramatic in US history. It started in the 1964 Presidential elections just after the passage of The Civil Rights Act in 1964. In the 15 Presidential elections since 1964 the 13 "Confederate State" have voted Republican 77% of the time. In the 15 elections before 1964 they only voted Republican 13% of the time. That is an increase of OVER SIX HUNDRED PERCENT. There is no way anyone can deny this "flip".
The results from the Presidential elections prompted the Republicans to devise their "Southern Strategy" (also called the "Top Down" strategy). Republican strategists have acknowledged this. It is not a secret or disputed in any way.
Within 8 years of the passage of The Civil Rights Act Democrats had lost control of over 25% of their Senate seats in the south (6 of 23) and many more in the House. Before the Civil Rights Act Democrats held a majority of House seats in every southern state with a majority of over 80% in 9 of the 11. Eight years later they had lost control of 2 states and only held an 80% majority in 5 of them.
By 1995 Democrats only held 10 of the 26 Senate seats in the south and only had a majority of House seats in 6 of the 13 states.
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The Democrats have always been for the democratization of the United States and more power to the Central Government. |
|
Some people claim that the Civil War was all about "states rigths", and that the Southern Democrats were revolting against the control of central government.
| quote | | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:As we discussed before you were banned the last time. . |
|
I have never been banned. I don't know what Mr. Toast did to get banned, but since you follow my posts you know that I don't use personal insults or post misinformation. Why do you compare me to a member who got banned? What did he do?
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 16, 06:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Yes there was. In fact it was the swiftest and most dramatic in US history. It started in the 1964 Presidential elections just after the passage of The Civil Rights Act in 1964. In the 15 Presidential elections since 1964 the 13 "Confederate State" have voted Republican 77% of the time. In the 15 elections before 1964 they only voted Republican 13% of the time. That is an increase of OVER SIX HUNDRED PERCENT. There is no way anyone can deny this "flip".
The results from the Presidential elections prompted the Republicans to devise their "Southern Strategy" (also called the "Top Down" strategy). Republican strategists have acknowledged this. It is not a secret or disputed in any way.
Within 8 years of the passage of The Civil Rights Act Democrats had lost control of over 25% of their Senate seats in the south (6 of 23) and many more in the House. Before the Civil Rights Act Democrats held a majority of House seats in every southern state with a majority of over 80% in 9 of the 11. Eight years later they had lost control of 2 states and only held an 80% majority in 5 of them.
By 1995 Democrats only held 10 of the 26 Senate seats in the south and only had a majority of House seats in 6 of the 13 states. |
|
Sorry... this is complete nonsense. Almost every Southern State well up into 1999 had a Democrat governor... with at least one Democrat senator (if not two). These southern states had Democrat governors essentially from acceptance into the union. Only recently in the past 20 years have the southern states become Republican.
All of the things you say are an attempt by Democrats to explain away why literally almost everything bad in history is on their side, like...
- Trail of Tears / Andrew Jackson
- Jim Crowe / Segregation Laws
- Internment Camps
- Agent Orange
- Eugenics
- Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing 300k people in an afternoon)
- Founding of the KKK
... I mean, I'm not even scratching the surface.
For what you're saying to be true, FDR would have to be Republican, and Eisenhower would have to be a Democrat.
Fact, the civil rights act of 1964 passed because Republicans voted for it. On party alone, the overwhelming vast majority of Democrats voted against it, while the overwhelming vast majority of Republicans voted for it. You're telling me then that Democrats were so upset that Republicans voted for it, that they decided to become Republicans also. This literally makes absolutely no sense.
Again, this is revisionist history to try to explain-away all the horrible things Democrats have done over the years.[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-16-2024).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JAN 16, 07:23 PM
|
|
|
We already went over the whole party shift/civil rights act do-si-do with toast.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JAN 17, 04:33 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
We already went over the whole party shift/civil rights act do-si-do with toast.
|
|
Racist leftists will always desperately cling to that "parties switched sides" myth like a drowning man clinging to a life raft.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-17-2024).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 17, 05:50 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Sorry... this is complete nonsense. Almost every Southern State well up into 1999 had a Democrat governor... with at least one Democrat senator (if not two). These southern states had Democrat governors essentially from acceptance into the union. Only recently in the past 20 years have the southern states become Republican.
All of the things you say are an attempt by Democrats to explain away why literally almost everything bad in history is on their side, like...
- Trail of Tears / Andrew Jackson
- Jim Crowe / Segregation Laws
- Internment Camps
- Agent Orange
- Eugenics
- Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing 300k people in an afternoon)
- Founding of the KKK
... I mean, I'm not even scratching the surface.
For what you're saying to be true, FDR would have to be Republican, and Eisenhower would have to be a Democrat.
Fact, the civil rights act of 1964 passed because Republicans voted for it. On party alone, the overwhelming vast majority of Democrats voted against it, while the overwhelming vast majority of Republicans voted for it. You're telling me then that Democrats were so upset that Republicans voted for it, that they decided to become Republicans also. This literally makes absolutely no sense.
Again, this is revisionist history to try to explain-away all the horrible things Democrats have done over the years. |
|
It's ridiculous to talk about current and recent Democrats as if they were separated by only a few years, or even just a few decades from that litany of past events that stretches from the early 1800s to slightly beyond the first half of the 20th century.
I used green to highlight the particular absurdity of the remark about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if that could somehow be separated from the larger context of World War Two... as if the American involvement in World War Two, from its beginnings to its end, can be reduced to an essentially partisan and Democrat-conceived project... as if Republicans from 1945 onwards were and still are overwhelmingly ashamed of the U.S. involvement in WW2 and how it was conducted.
Who thinks like that? No sensible person whips out a cherry-picked list of events from the early 1800s to just beyond the first half of the 20th century, and talks about it as if it were entirely the work of Democrats, and even more absurd, as if any of it reflects the thinking and purposes of current and recent Democrats.
This is "magical" thinking that imputes a constancy and an immutability to what it means to be a Democrat—or a Republican—across a span of history that is far too long and complicated to submit to this overridingly reductionist approach. It's as thoroughly looney-tunes as if I were to accost any of my neighbors who happen to profess Christianity and rant to their face about how they should be ashamed of what "their side" got up to during the Byzantine era, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, when empowered Christian leaders doled out barbarous punishments against untold numbers of people across the world with the nonchalance of someone working a handheld pepper grinder to season their salad.
This is not an understanding of history... it's a colossal misunderstanding of history.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-17-2024).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 17, 08:02 AM
|
|
Rinse, I agree with you about your comment on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, racism had nothing to do with that.
We were involved in total war against a fanatical enemy.
The bombings saved lives on both sides, some estimates I have seen were as high as 1.5 million lives.
The rest of TA's comments are completely appropriate and accurate.
And the Democratic Party and media still place a higher value on skin color, rather than a person's character and competence.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 17, 08:49 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:It's ridiculous to talk about current and recent Democrats as if they were separated by only a few years, or even just a few decades from that litany of past events that stretches from the early 1800s to slightly beyond the first half of the 20th century.
I used green to highlight the particular absurdity of the remark about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if that could somehow be separated from the larger context of World War Two... as if the American involvement in World War Two, from its beginnings to its end, can be reduced to an essentially partisan and Democrat-conceived project... as if Republicans from 1945 onwards were and still are overwhelmingly ashamed of the U.S. involvement in WW2 and how it was conducted.
Who thinks like that? No sensible person whips out a cherry-picked list of events from the early 1800s to just beyond the first half of the 20th century, and talks about it as if it were entirely the work of Democrats, and even more absurd, as if any of it reflects the thinking and purposes of current and recent Democrats.
This is "magical" thinking that imputes a constancy and an immutability to what it means to be a Democrat—or a Republican—across a span of history that is far too long and complicated to submit to this overridingly reductionist approach. It's as thoroughly looney-tunes as if I were to accost any of my neighbors who happen to profess Christianity and rant to their face about how they should be ashamed of what "their side" got up to during the Byzantine era, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, when empowered Christian leaders doled out barbarous punishments against untold numbers of people across the world with the nonchalance of someone working a handheld pepper grinder to season their salad.
This is not an understanding of history... it's a colossal misunderstanding of history. |
|
The intrinsic point of this is to emphasize how the "flip" revisionist history concept is flawed. In the 1930s... you had FDR, who was by all accounts the most socialist president we've ever had in the history of our country. He's responsible for essentially growing government and implementing social welfare programs. Absolutely NO ONE in their right mind would consider him a Republican... he was by absolutely all accounts, the epitome of Democrat policy. It's the kind of stuff they strive for today.
BUT... during that time, Democrats implemented everything from internment camps for the Japanese, to heavily pushing eugenics through a litany of programs... the least of which was Margaret Sanger who intentionally put abortion clinics in black neighborhoods for the purpose of sterilizing blacks. This practice, quite honestly, continues through today as these Planned Parenthoods are intentionally placed in black neighborhoods. Even in states / cities where there are poor and underprivileged whites who have unwanted pregnancies, they STILL have to drive into black neighborhoods to get a free abortion because even through the 1970s these Planned Parenthoods were exclusively built only in black neighborhoods.
Also during that time... the KKK, which we know factually was formed by Democrat politicians, was very active in the South. Democrats dominated the South... as best put by Khan Academy:
In the South... "Democrats relied on the Klan to secure election victories, as Klansmen oftentimes threatened or killed competing Republican candidates. Many southern Republicans actually abandoned their campaigns due to the inability to hold meetings and attract voters while living in constant fear."
So all of this is going on in the 1930s... under the most progressive Democrat president this country has ever had. Are we to believe that these people are really Republicans and the Democrat party isn't responsible or shouldn't take responsibility for their history?
So then the question is... by this same logic, is Dwight D. Eisenhower not a Republican? By all accounts, he was one of the most conservative presidents we've ever had. He was responsible for a significant amount of some of the most anti-slavery / pro-rights legislation between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He desegregated schools, and even used the U.S. military to ensure that schools in Democrat areas were FORCED to take black students.
And now we're in the 1960s. Democrats were still overwhelmingly against blacks, not only in the South, but effectively everywhere as indicative of the voting numbers in the Civil Rights Act. To a degree, yes... John F. Kennedy is considered by many to be very much a right-leaning Democrat. He instituted one of the largest tax cuts in history, followed then only by Ronald Reagan. To a degree, there's a common theme among 4 presidents... Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Trump. Cringe you may... but they all held very similar policies.
The Republicans were the minority in both the House and the Senate that year... but left on Democrat votes alone (respectively), the Democrats would never have passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a majority of Democrats voted against it. Nearly all Republicans in both chambers voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act... which Kennedy had championed during his presidency, and likely gave his life for it.
But during this time... you had politicians such as Prescott Bush and Al Gore Sr... both members of their respective parties. These families did not "switch sides" or "flip" as modern history revisionists would have you believe. Instead, these people remained Democrats.
The idea that members of the Democrat party would switch sides to join the party that literally facilitated the very thing they hated (passage of the Civil Rights Act), is completely ludicrous. It makes absolutely no sense. Democrats, in an attempt to sort of "cleanse" their checkered past... hinge everything on Johnson's quote, "We may have lost the South" after he signed the Civil Rights Act that Kennedy fought for.
There is not only NO evidence that the parties switched sides... but in fact, the Southern states remained Democrat strongholds for decades after. As I've mentioned REPEATEDLY... every Southern state had a Democrat governor (meaning the majority of voters were Democrat) well into the 90s and into the early 2000s. When I moved to Florida in 1996, it was as SOLID blue then as California is today. We'd had only 1 Republican Governor in the entire history of the state up until that point (if I remember correctly, and he won because the prior democrat resigned in scandal), and every major seat in the state was held by a Democrat, almost all of our congressional seats, and for most of Florida's history, both senate seats.
It has been a SLOW... SLOW transition. To that point, Jeb Bush BARELY won the Governorship of Florida... and it was hotly contested until this most recent. It's not like Florida was always Republican, it got that way from anti-Communist Cubans, Venezuelans, and Argentines moving into the state, along with literally millions of northerners with conservative values moving South. Every Southern state from Tennessee to Texas has a nearly similar history.
So this "flip" is complete nonsense.
As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... I've learned over the years to not blindly accept history as I'm taught it, and to do my own research. I was taught in the Fairfax County Public School System that we bombed them to stop the war, and that countless lives were saved. Sure... I get that. But if I'm expected to be held accountable (because I'm mostly white) for things that happened 100s of years ago that had nothing to do with my family... then the Democrats can be held accountable for the ideology they held back then too. We didn't nuke a military base, we nuked a city, intentionally killing civilians. There were about 250k people killed instantly, with another 140k or so that died within the next two years from radiation poisoning and cancer. That's over 350k people dead because we dropped a bomb on them. There is no justification for this that I can accept.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 17, 09:03 AM
|
|
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian cities, yes, but the residents of both cities worked in the military-industrial facilities and had countless home and neighborhoods industries to support Japanese war effort.
WW2 featured Allied and Axis bombing raids on civilian populations, in the European and Pacific theaters.
It was started by the Axis powers initially, but you don't win a war against fanatics by playing nice.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 17, 09:56 AM
|
|
the rump Gop has the values of jeff davis
while Abe's values left long ago[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 01-17-2024).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JAN 17, 10:11 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Who thinks like that? No sensible person whips out a cherry-picked list of events from the early 1800s to just beyond the first half of the 20th century, and talks about it as if it were entirely the work of Democrats, and even more absurd, as if any of it reflects the thinking and purposes of current and recent Democrats.
|
|
Now, replace "Democrats" with "Americans" and think slavery and Jim Crow.
Thought about it for a minute?
Who thinks like that?
OK, now think Democrats, or more precisely, American Leftists.
Indeed, who thinks like that?
|
|
|
|