WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:11:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Author Topic: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays  (Read 25159 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: November 18, 2012, 03:44:09 PM »

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that. 

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and..... 
Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW PA right in the heart of coal country?
while I agree Obama's underperformance in southern Wv and eastern KY had notably more to do with coal than race, PA-12 has relatively little coal-related employment and doesn't support your theory.

On another note, if you're going to try to sell a southern strategy revisionist historian as a 'liberal', you may not want to claim that for an article published in freakin' National Review. Roll Eyes That is only SLIGHTLY mor compelling than your citing Pat Buchanan to claim there was never any race-based southern strategy.
First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that.

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and.....  
I mean in the South.  Remember that much of western Virginia also voted for Doug Wilder (who was also black) for governor in 1989.  And here are some articles to disprove your theory, including one by a liberal professor who ascribes to the revisionist history on the Southern strategy:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
 http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW Pennsylvania, the heart of coal country.  

And notice on the map of the 1989 Virginia governor's race how Wilder carried several counties in the western part of the state, on the border with Kentucky:

 


Actually, for the time, that wasn't a very impresive showing for a Democrat in SoWe Virginia.

Here's Clinton 1996:



Note how Clinton did just as well, if not, better in coal country, even though he lost the state as a whole while Wilder won it.  And no one is denying that coal was a big factor.  It was a HUGE factor.  But the fact of the matter is that despite a horrible economy and the fact that John Kerry was a rich Northeasterner, Obama still wasn't able to match his performance during the 2008 election.  Odd?  Roll Eyes


And 1989?  Please, that's 25 years after.  
The article by the liberal professor was the second one, not the one in National Review.  And 2008 was 44 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  What makes you think that race wasn't a factor in 1989 but was in 2008?  Clinton was very popular in coal country, as evidenced by how he carried Kentucky and West Virginia (the latter by wide margins) both times he ran.  Obama is much more liberal than Clinton and is perceived as more hostile to coal.  (Remember when he said that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade plan?)
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: November 18, 2012, 08:00:16 PM »

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that. 

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and..... 
Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW PA right in the heart of coal country?
while I agree Obama's underperformance in southern Wv and eastern KY had notably more to do with coal than race, PA-12 has relatively little coal-related employment and doesn't support your theory.

On another note, if you're going to try to sell a southern strategy revisionist historian as a 'liberal', you may not want to claim that for an article published in freakin' National Review. Roll Eyes That is only SLIGHTLY mor compelling than your citing Pat Buchanan to claim there was never any race-based southern strategy.
First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that.

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and.....  
I mean in the South.  Remember that much of western Virginia also voted for Doug Wilder (who was also black) for governor in 1989.  And here are some articles to disprove your theory, including one by a liberal professor who ascribes to the revisionist history on the Southern strategy:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
 http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW Pennsylvania, the heart of coal country.  

And notice on the map of the 1989 Virginia governor's race how Wilder carried several counties in the western part of the state, on the border with Kentucky:

 


Actually, for the time, that wasn't a very impressive showing for a Democrat in SoWe Virginia.

Here's Clinton 1996:



Note how Clinton did just as well, if not, better in coal country, even though he lost the state as a whole while Wilder won it.  And no one is denying that coal was a big factor.  It was a HUGE factor.  But the fact of the matter is that despite a horrible economy and the fact that John Kerry was a rich Northeasterner, Obama still wasn't able to match his performance during the 2008 election.  Odd?  Roll Eyes


And 1989?  Please, that's 25 years after.  
The article by the liberal professor was the second one, not the one in National Review.  And 2008 was 44 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  What makes you think that race wasn't a factor in 1989 but was in 2008?  Clinton was very popular in coal country, as evidenced by how he carried Kentucky and West Virginia (the latter by wide margins) both times he ran.  Obama is much more liberal than Clinton and is perceived as more hostile to coal.  (Remember when he said that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade plan?)


I never said race wasn't a factor in 1989.  On the contrary, I was suggesting that it may have been a factor, just not enough to override the conventional strength that Democrats had with labor at the time.  No, I wasn't comparing Obama to Clinton, I was comparing him to John Kerry, who was also seen as to the left on things like climate change.  But I think you knew that...

And  he didn't actually say "electricity rates will skyrocket."  That quote was taken out of context.  He was responding to a theoretical question.  If you actually listened to the audio of that statement, you would know that, instead of just accepting the obvious paraphrasing done by conservative bloggers as fact.  Then again, there aren't a whole lot of people in the coal industry who are less shallow than you are, so I guess you have a point.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: November 18, 2012, 08:18:06 PM »

No act. I'm a Republican, albeit definitely in the moderate wing on most issues.

He has to be, now that I'm a bitterly partisan Democrat! Otherwise U.S. General wouldn't have balanced moderation!  Tongue
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: November 18, 2012, 08:21:22 PM »

I just don't get it. Since Democrats were the party of slavery 150 yeras ago, and southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott fought the Civil Rights bills in the mid-60's, why do minorities now vote overwhelmingly for even white Democrats?? Granted Thurmond and his ilk had strong strong support from now widely-discredited Republicans like Reagan and Goldwater, but surely minorities recall how the northern moderate wing, ably represented in recent years by folks like Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, supported civil rights legislation thenn

I just don't get it?!? Huh I guess Oldiesfreak and Ben Kenobi are right: Minority voters are mostly political sheep who listen to their leaders blindly and can't rationally discern their own interests. Cry
Strom Thurmond was the only major segregationist to become a Republican, and Reagan and Goldwater were both strong supporters of civil rights who opposed the 1964 CRA because of questions over its constitutionality. (Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in making his family's business one of the first in the state to desegregate.  Reagan also supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.")  Trent Lott and Jesse Helms weren't even in politics much until the 70s.  I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

I know, Oldies! I completely agree your post excapsulates the truth without an ounce of missing nuance or historical revisionism. Hence I agree with your and Kenobi's fundamental premise that minorities are overwhelmingly (near-universally among African-Americans) blindly ignoring history in supporting the racist Democrats rather than the true protectors of civil rigths, Romney's GOP.
I don't think Democrats are necessarily racist now, but they do have a long history of racism.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: November 18, 2012, 08:24:58 PM »

I just don't get it. Since Democrats were the party of slavery 150 yeras ago, and southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott fought the Civil Rights bills in the mid-60's, why do minorities now vote overwhelmingly for even white Democrats?? Granted Thurmond and his ilk had strong strong support from now widely-discredited Republicans like Reagan and Goldwater, but surely minorities recall how the northern moderate wing, ably represented in recent years by folks like Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, supported civil rights legislation thenn

I just don't get it?!? Huh I guess Oldiesfreak and Ben Kenobi are right: Minority voters are mostly political sheep who listen to their leaders blindly and can't rationally discern their own interests. Cry
Strom Thurmond was the only major segregationist to become a Republican, and Reagan and Goldwater were both strong supporters of civil rights who opposed the 1964 CRA because of questions over its constitutionality. (Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in making his family's business one of the first in the state to desegregate.  Reagan also supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.")  Trent Lott and Jesse Helms weren't even in politics much until the 70s.  I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

I know, Oldies! I completely agree your post excapsulates the truth without an ounce of missing nuance or historical revisionism. Hence I agree with your and Kenobi's fundamental premise that minorities are overwhelmingly (near-universally among African-Americans) blindly ignoring history in supporting the racist Democrats rather than the true protectors of civil rigths, Romney's GOP.
I don't think Democrats are necessarily racist now, but they do have a long history of racism.

Oh I agree. The problem is the Democratic Party's racism is concentrated in about a century ago.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: November 18, 2012, 08:30:32 PM »

I just don't get it. Since Democrats were the party of slavery 150 yeras ago, and southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott fought the Civil Rights bills in the mid-60's, why do minorities now vote overwhelmingly for even white Democrats?? Granted Thurmond and his ilk had strong strong support from now widely-discredited Republicans like Reagan and Goldwater, but surely minorities recall how the northern moderate wing, ably represented in recent years by folks like Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, supported civil rights legislation thenn

I just don't get it?!? Huh I guess Oldiesfreak and Ben Kenobi are right: Minority voters are mostly political sheep who listen to their leaders blindly and can't rationally discern their own interests. Cry
Strom Thurmond was the only major segregationist to become a Republican, and Reagan and Goldwater were both strong supporters of civil rights who opposed the 1964 CRA because of questions over its constitutionality. (Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in making his family's business one of the first in the state to desegregate.  Reagan also supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.")  Trent Lott and Jesse Helms weren't even in politics much until the 70s.  I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

I know, Oldies! I completely agree your post excapsulates the truth without an ounce of missing nuance or historical revisionism. Hence I agree with your and Kenobi's fundamental premise that minorities are overwhelmingly (near-universally among African-Americans) blindly ignoring history in supporting the racist Democrats rather than the true protectors of civil rigths, Romney's GOP.
I don't think Democrats are necessarily racist now, but they do have a long history of racism.

Oh I agree. The problem is the Democratic Party's racism is concentrated in about a century ago.

Exactly, just like the GOP used to have a history of moderation... both are in the past and do not REFLECT CURRENT POLICY.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: November 18, 2012, 08:43:02 PM »

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: November 19, 2012, 03:30:18 AM »

I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott


Yeah, certainly not a fan of segregation.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: November 19, 2012, 11:31:33 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A claim held with religious fervor by Democrats, and Democrats only.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: November 19, 2012, 01:09:10 PM »

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.
How?  The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: November 19, 2012, 03:55:41 PM »

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.
How? 

This was an effective rebuttal.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: November 19, 2012, 03:59:24 PM »

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: November 19, 2012, 06:15:52 PM »

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.
Are those just random people shooting off critiques?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: November 19, 2012, 09:08:03 PM »

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.
Are those just random people shooting off critiques?

Why not judge by the argument rather than an arbitrary assessment of who you think they are?
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: November 19, 2012, 09:09:15 PM »

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.
Are those just random people shooting off critiques?

Why not judge by the argument rather than an arbitrary assessment of who you think they are?

Don't credentials matter too?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: November 19, 2012, 09:13:14 PM »


Credentials do matter, but if we're going that route, both of your people have credentials issues. The best we can say is that they are opinion columnists or advocates in good standing in the right-wing media. (Although Gerard is pretty obscure.) I don't know what your standards for credentials are.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: November 23, 2012, 02:46:26 PM »

At first, it was kind of funny watching Republicans try and pretend there's any real connection between their party in 1860 and 2012 with regard to civil rights. Besides, civil rights weren't supported or opposed by a party so much as they were a region — a culture.

That culture that supported slavery still exists. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's the same culture that thought that a skin color makes you 3/5 a human, supported Jim Crow laws, opposed women's right to vote, opposed interracial marriage, held KKK potluck dinners, despises immigration, and now wants to make sure gays are properly oppressed to make up for all the other groups they weren't able to dick over.

Southerners may have switched parties, but not cultures. It's like saying a cereal is "new and improved" when all the manufacturer really did was change its name.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: November 26, 2012, 11:42:37 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: November 26, 2012, 11:46:12 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley

Please provide evidence that Southern whites didn't support:
1. slavery
2. the KKK

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: November 26, 2012, 12:19:14 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2012, 12:21:15 PM by Gravis Marketing »

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

2, the KKK.

That's not hard at all. The Republican Party in the 1920s was associated with the KKK in many states, particularly Indiana, where it dominated the party for a few years in the legislature and even elected the governor. The KKK was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Black, and for Prohibition, and in some parts of the country, it expressed itself via the Republican party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Republican_Party

Of course the Democratic Party in the South was no better and the legal climate for minorities worse. The southern Democratic party had a very uneasy alliance with the northern Dems, with whom it disagreed on Prohibition and other issues. The Republican Party was a non-entity in the deep South and marginal elsewhere in the region, so everyone who had power and could vote was a Democrat by default.  
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: November 26, 2012, 03:16:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your thesis, you need to provide proof for it. Smiley
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: November 26, 2012, 03:18:16 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your thesis is that the Republican party of today is the same party as the party in the 1920s, but the Democrat party is not?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,932


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: November 26, 2012, 04:07:43 PM »
« Edited: November 26, 2012, 04:10:59 PM by Gravis Marketing »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your thesis is that the Republican party of today is the same party as the party in the 1920s, but the Democrat party is not?

I was responding to the post below by providing evidence of #2.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.


I don't see anything in my post about this meaning the party of today is the same one that was joined at the hip with the KKK. For what it's worth, I don't think the Republican party of today is the Republican party of the 1920s, seeing as how everyone involved in that party is dead and the issues at play have moved on. Dunno, that just seems obvious to me.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: November 26, 2012, 06:01:01 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: November 26, 2012, 06:20:43 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 13 queries.