The inconvenient truth about the Republican Party

[Shogon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OURy5WFp0zk

:-(

[Prometheus]

Had me up until her vague summary of the situation post-civil rights act.

Facts :applause:
Facts :applause:
Facts :applause:
Facts :applause:
Facts :applause:
Vague, unsubstantiated claim :wtf:

[Kblaze8855]

Republicans trying to claim achievements of people from the 1850s is always funny to me. About like Democrats claiming Thomas Jefferson as the parties founder or trying to get a claim to James Madison and make the constitution democratic.

There have been so many party names, and shifts in principle over hundreds of years, and people coming and going and backstabbing and reformations....

Nobody reasonable is trying to tie people from 200 years ago to modern stances held by people who just happen to have a D or an R next to them.

There is no reason to even bring up Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilsons beliefs when we talk AOC or Abraham Lincoln on the subject of George Bush.

These parties members barely agree with eachother while they are living in the same world.....but we out here giving Mitch Mcconnell points for Thaddeus Stevens.......

[bladefd]

Parties have always been shifting. Today's Republicans feel like the 50s Democrats and today's Democrats feel like 50s Republicans. Just look at the two parties stances on 60s social movements.

Civil rights movement: Republicans for it, Democrats against it
Women's movement, gay rights, other social issues were all opposed by Democrats but championed for by Republicans. Republicans also fought to expand government while Democrats largely wanted a small government. Democrats dominated the South in states like Texas and Louisiana while Republicans dominated states in North like New York and New Jersey. The flip began to manifest under FDR but probably didn't completely show until the 60s/maybe even 70s in some cases.

Does anyone here seriously believe both parties are the same today as they were in early to mid1900s??? Republicans fighting for gay rights, women's rights to make own decisions/own land/etc, and end to segregation while Democrats opposed to all those. Think for a minute.

I guarantee you if we were to bring back the biggest Democrats back then, they would switch to Republican party today. Republicans from back then would switch to Democrat party today.

[stalkerforlife]

Got em.

[NumberSix]

Parties have always been shifting. Today's Republicans feel like the 50s Democrats and today's Democrats feel like 50s Republicans. Just look at the two parties stances on 60s social movements.

Civil rights movement: Republicans for it, Democrats against it
Women's movement, gay rights, other social issues were all opposed by Democrats but championed for by Republicans. Republicans also fought to expand government while Democrats largely wanted a small government. Democrats dominated the South in states like Texas and Louisiana while Republicans dominated states in North like New York and New Jersey. The flip began to manifest under FDR but probably didn't completely show until the 60s/maybe even 70s in some cases.

Does anyone here seriously believe both parties are the same today as they were in early to mid1900s??? Republicans fighting for gay rights, women's rights to make own decisions/own land/etc, and end to segregation while Democrats opposed to all those. Think for a minute.

I guarantee you if we were to bring back the biggest Democrats back then, they would switch to Republican party today. Republicans from back then would switch to Democrat party today.
I can assure you, FDR today would obviously still be a democrat. If Bernie Sanders we’re alive in the 30s, he’d be a member of FDR’s cabinet.

If Calvin Coolidge we’re alive today, he’d still be a Republican. Nixon who was a Republican in the 40s and 50s would still be one in 2019.

Bill Clinton of course who was a Democrat back in the 70s with all his KKK buddies is still a Dem.

The Kennedy’s are still all Dems.

All Gore and his segregationist daddy would still be/are Dems

[bladefd]

You know nothing about history.

I can assure you, FDR today would obviously still be a democrat. If Bernie Sanders we’re alive in the 30s, he’d be a member of FDR’s cabinet.

If Calvin Coolidge we’re alive today, he’d still be a Republican. Nixon who was a Republican in the 40s and 50s would still be one in 2019.

Bill Clinton of course who was a Democrat back in the 70s with all his KKK buddies is still a Dem.

The Kennedy’s are still all Dems.

All Gore and his segregationist daddy would still be/are Dems

There is absolutely zero question the platforms for both parties have essentially flipped, especially when it comes to social causes. Not just social causes but even something, such as the size of the government. Until FDR came along with his ideas beginning a change in Democrat party, Democrats were all about small government and opposed to social changes like desegregation or women having rights.

Read this fact:

Civil rights movement: Republicans for it, Democrats against it
Women's movement, gay rights, other social issues were all opposed by Democrats but championed for by Republicans. Republicans also fought to expand government while Democrats largely wanted a small government. Democrats dominated the South in states like Texas and Louisiana while Republicans dominated states in North like New York and New Jersey. The flip began to manifest under FDR but probably didn't completely show until the 60s/maybe even 70s in some cases.

Does anyone here seriously believe both parties are the same today as they were in early to mid1900s??? Republicans fighting for gay rights, women's rights to make own decisions/own land/etc, and end to segregation while Democrats opposed to all those. Think for a minute.
^It's ALL historically true.

40s FDR is a Democrat today, yes, but other Democrat leaders back then would probably become Republican today if we took them from 1938 and dropped them in 2019. If 2019 Barack Obama was dropped into 1938, he would probably be a Republican.

Social causes of 30s/40s Republicans are much more in line with 2000s Democrats' social causes. As I said, things in Democrat party began to change under FDR, but it wasn't until much later, like 60s/70s, when the platform changes in Democrat party had changed significantly from the party of 20s/30s/even 40s. Before FDR came along, Democrats were for small government and resistant to social change like desegregation.

At the same time, Republican party was shifting to resisting social change and changing from the party that was once for big federal government to becoming for small government. I mean sh!t, Republican party was once fighting for gay rights & Democrats were against gay rights. Can you really see that happening today?? Socially, it's like flipping a dime with political platforms. African Americans were once all-Republican in 20s/30s/40s, they are mostly Democrat now. It was because Democrats vehemently fought against giving blacks full rights, while Republicans like Herbert Hoover were for it. Can you really see Democrats today saying "RACISM IS DEAD!!"? That's more in line with modern day Republicans. Can you see Republicans leading a "black lives matter" rally? That's something Democrats would do. FDR was the catalyst to change in Democrat party, getting closer to what it is today.

All things posted in this post historically accurate and you are arguing with the wrong person. Science and history are my realms.

[bladefd]

BTW - FDR was resistant to desegregation. Democrat Congressional speakers and other party leaders were very much against desegregation. You think that's the same Democrat party of today??

[NumberSix]

BTW - FDR was resistant to desegregation. Democrat Congressional speakers and other party leaders were very much against desegregation. You think that's the same Democrat party of today??
1. Segregation IS government. Segregationist Dems were not small government, obviously.

2. No, the Democrats today are not pro-segregation. That’s not a “flip”. The Democrats joined the Republicans on the issue and now BOTH parties are anti-segregationist.

3. FDR literally rounded up a group of Americans based on their ethnicity and put them in camps.

Which party today likes FDR?

[nnn123]

If you were a farmer in Arkansas back in 1860 (let's say your name was "Bill"), almost certainly you were a southern democrat. If you trace Bill's descendant's to today, there's a very strong chance Bill's great great great great great great great great grandson still lives in Arkansas and identifies as a Republican. The terms "democrat" and "republican" are literally useless, and anyone who understands US history knows this.

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]1. Segregation IS government. Segregationist Dems were not small government, obviously.

2. No, the Democrats today are not pro-segregation. That

[NumberSix]

Like I said, FDR would be a Democrat today, but the point that changes to Democrat platform began under him. Before him, Democrats as a whole were very unlike those of today.

It wasn't a complete mirror flip cause-for-cause idea-for-idea, but it's very close to flipping socially at the very least.

Tell me the following is not true:


Also, I didn't say segregation and government size are directly related. What I said was Democrats were largely against segregation and they were also for smaller government. Republicans were opposite in both areas in that same era (20s/30s/40s).
Where the hell are you getting this stuff? Democrats absolutely were for segregation and Republicans were against it.

And Democrats were NEVER for small government. They loved big state government. They just didn’t want the federal government to force them to stop their racist policies.


You are glazing over the most important piece of my post, which I quoted.
Because Everything in your post was wrong.

[RoseCity07]

Always makes me laugh when Republicans try to convince people they are the party that fights for all rights. Yeah sure. Hates gays. 99% of the GOP is white. Constantly trying to find ways to keep brown people out of the country. They don't care about spending money on higher education. They're all about spending money on military but not on health care.

Republcans are ****in weird people.

I do believe we need conservatives to check the crazy far left. I hate political correctness and the antifa psychos absolutely need to go. If the Republicans had their way the world would undoubtedly be worse off.

Trump says very disturbing shit on a daily basis and gets cheered. It's so creepy.

[NumberSix]

I do believe we need conservatives to check the crazy far left. I hate political correctness and the antifa psychos absolutely need to go. If the Republicans had their way the world would undoubtedly be worse off.
if Republicans had their way, things would be basically exactly how they are right now, just with government power rolled back.

It’s democrats that want to drastically change everything. It’s Dems that constantly argue that the government needs to control everything because all you evil people can’t be trusted.

If you like things the way they are, you should be a Republican. If you think everything should be completely changed, you should be a Democrat.

[Nanners]

if Republicans had their way, things would be basically exactly how they are right now, just with government power rolled back.

It’s democrats that want to drastically change everything. It’s Dems that constantly argue that the government needs to control everything because all you evil people can’t be trusted.

If you like things the way they are, you should be a Republican. If you think everything should be completely changed, you should be a Democrat.

How exactly did government power get rolled back during the GW Bush regime? How exactly has Trump rolled back government power? Republicans and Democrats ARE the government, and neither party has any interest in making any meaningful cuts to their own powers.

Democrats dont want to change shit, Hillary Clintons unofficial slogan was "America is already great"... she made it perfectly clear that she did not want to change a single goddamn thing. The only changes the dems are interested in are meaningless and inconsequential crap like allowing tranny men to use womens restrooms.

The Democrats are basically the Washington Generals to the Republicans Harlem Globetrotters. The primary function of the democratic party is to pretend like they are a legitimate opponent... but ultimately its all an act and both parties are working together to serve the interests of the same handful of oligarchs and billionaires.

[NumberSix]

How exactly did government power get rolled back during the GW Bush regime? How exactly has Trump rolled back government power? Republicans and Democrats ARE the government, and neither party has any interest in making any meaningful cuts to their own powers.

Democrats dont want to change shit, Hillary Clintons unofficial slogan was "America is already great"... she made it perfectly clear that she did not want to change a single goddamn thing. The only changes the dems are interested in are meaningless and inconsequential crap like allowing tranny men to use womens restrooms.

The Democrats are basically the Washington Generals to the Republicans Harlem Globetrotters. The primary function of the democratic party is to pretend like they are a legitimate opponent... but ultimately its all an act and both parties are working together to serve the interests of the same handful of oligarchs and billionaires.
I will concede that the people in control of the Democrat party don’t actually believe in anything. That’s why they’re willing to support absolutely anything at any time as long as it’s politically convenient in that specific moment.

The problem with believing nothing is that you don’t feel compelled to preserve anything. They’re willing to throw anything away if they think it will get them power. That’s why you have someone like Joe Biden saying the Anglo-American jurisprudential system needs to go. He’s willing to throw the most important things away if he thinks he’ll personally benefit from it.

They’re willing to throw away the rule of law or national sovereignty if they thinks it will win a few more votes from people who have relatives that are illegal aliens. They’re willing to corrupt any process for short term gain.

The Democrats can’t be trusted with anything. The Republicans will absolutely sell you out to big money interests, that’s a given. But they at least genuinely do believe in the founding principles and would want to preserve them.

[Nanners]

The Democrats can’t be trusted with anything. The Republicans will absolutely sell you out to big money interests, that’s a given. But they at least genuinely do believe in the founding principles and would want to preserve them.

Neither party can be trusted with anything. The republicans dont believe in the founding principles any more than the democrats do, the only thing that either party believes in is money.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Subsidiary of the Russian Goverment

[NumberSix]

Dems hate Russia because the Russian nationalists booted the soviets.

[bladefd]

Where the hell are you getting this stuff? Democrats absolutely were for segregation and Republicans were against it.

And Democrats were NEVER for small government. They loved big state government. They just didn’t want the federal government to force them to stop their racist policies.


Because Everything in your post was wrong.

Errr, it should say *democrats were against desegregation* .. my bad.

Also, democratic party was once very conservative. Republicans were the progressive party. There is absolutely zero question that throughout the 19th century and all the way up to FDR, Democrat party was for small government and states' rights starting all the way back with Thomas Jefferson. You can argue until the cows come home, but it's a historical fact, even if you find it hard to believe.

What part of that quote is wrong?


Civil rights movement: Republicans for it, Democrats against it
Women's movement, gay rights, other social issues were all opposed by Democrats but championed for by Republicans.


Republicans also fought to expand government while Democrats largely wanted a small government.


Democrats dominated the South in states like Texas and Louisiana while Republicans dominated states in North like New York and New Jersey.


The flip began to manifest under FDR but probably didn't completely show until the 60s/maybe even 70s in some cases.


Does anyone here seriously believe both parties are the same today as they were in early to mid1900s??? Republicans fighting for gay rights, women's rights to make own decisions/own land/etc, and end to segregation while Democrats opposed to all those.

Which part is wrong?

[bladefd]

Neither party can be trusted with anything. The republicans dont believe in the founding principles any more than the democrats do, the only thing that either party believes in is money.

Pretty much. It always comes down to money a.k.a power. For power, anyone will become corrupt.

[CelticBaller]

Both parties are full of idiots who are loud extremist

We should be looking for a common ground, not differences

[Lakers Legend#32]

There is no Republican Party anymore, only Trump.

[Patrick Chewing]

There is no Republican Party anymore, only Trump.


Trump essentially dismantled the GOP. Glad you and I can agree on something. The GOP was weak. Full of snakes that promised one thing, but went belly up in submission once they got elected. Not Trump. Trump should rename the Party. Any ideas?

[NumberSix]

There is no Republican Party anymore, only Trump.
No, the party is just now more inline with their own voters instead of DC lobbyists and multinational corporations. That

[diamenz]

No, the party is just now more inline with their own voters instead of DC lobbyists and multinational corporations. That’s the Democrats’ base now.

establishment cucks like pelosi & schumer along with all of their minions are not more in line with their voters than they are with their donors. these people would, believe it or not - rather see another four years of trump than have a progressive take office. shit, pelosi and company spend more time and energy battling off progressives than they do republicans, lol.

at least republicans are consistent with their values and their f***ery. at least they'll stab u in your chest rather than your back the way democrats do.


Trump essentially dismantled the GOP. Glad you and I can agree on something. The GOP was weak. Full of snakes that promised one thing, but went belly up in submission once they got elected. Not Trump. Trump should rename the Party. Any ideas?

trump's presidency at least imo has been more traditional republican orthodox than the media, or anyone for that matter constantly make it out to be. washington has changed trump more than trump has changed washington. he ran a campaign based on draining the swamp and attacking the establishment, yet like i said his policies are mainstream republicanism. the only real reason people are up in arms about him is because of his tweeting and brashness @ rallies, etc.

trump didn't dismantle the gop - the gop is plenty strong... at least compared to these weak democrats in washington. they know how to fight, they know how to win elections and they don't apologize for shit. if anything, trump has and is dismantling the democratic party and the media. after all, he did beat them all.

[tpols]

Trump essentially dismantled the GOP. Glad you and I can agree on something. The GOP was weak. Full of snakes that promised one thing, but went belly up in submission once they got elected. Not Trump. Trump should rename the Party. Any ideas?


The Commission.

-Don Corleone

[NumberSix]

Errr, it should say *democrats were against desegregation* .. my bad.

Also, democratic party was once very conservative. Republicans were the progressive party. There is absolutely zero question that throughout the 19th century and all the way up to FDR, Democrat party was for small government and states' rights starting all the way back with Thomas Jefferson. You can argue until the cows come home, but it's a historical fact, even if you find it hard to believe.

What part of that quote is wrong?


1. You don’t know what the words “conservative” or “progressive” mean.

2. The Democrats were never for small government. There’s nothing bigger government than having laws banning “race mixing”, forcing businesses to be segregated, having laws that force people to sit on particular parts of a bus, segregated schools, etc.

They disingenuously were against federal government power only because they didn’t want the federal government getting in the way of their big state government.

3. Republicans are still for the exact same civil rights they were for at the time for the exact reasons.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans actually believe in the constitution. Democrats refused to adhere to the 14th amendment constitution which made racial discrimination (segregation) illegal.

[TheMan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OURy5WFp0zk

:-(
You honestly believed that propaganda, didn't ya :roll:

She conveniently skipped right over the Southern Strategy employed by the GOP right after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is true that the Republican Party USED to be the racially tolerant party while the Democratic Party was the racist party of the Klan. But after the Southern Strategy, a realignment happened, thats how the south went from blue to red. OP, whats your explanation of this shift from blue to red?

:facepalm



In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]

The "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 grievances 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 than 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, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back 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]

[Patrick Chewing]

The Commission.

-Don Corleone


How about,

[LostCause]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I will concede that the people in control of the Democrat party don

[SomeBlackDude]

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I will concede that the people in control of the Democrat party don

[TheMan]

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]How about,

[Patrick Chewing]

Nah, thats played out...

How about the KKKult of Personality Party?



Stop watching CNN, Juan. And don

[NumberSix]

Nah, thats played out...

How about the KKKult of Personality Party?
Doesn

[bladefd]

Trump essentially dismantled the GOP. Glad you and I can agree on something. The GOP was weak. Full of snakes that promised one thing, but went belly up in submission once they got elected. Not Trump. Trump should rename the Party. Any ideas?

Trumpeters Party and the logo could be the following:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/226/141/9ca.jpg

Thoughts? :cheers:

[Hawker]

establishment cucks like pelosi & schumer along with all of their minions are not more in line with their voters than they are with their donors. these people would, believe it or not - rather see another four years of trump than have a progressive take office. shit, pelosi and company spend more time and energy battling off progressives than they do republicans, lol.

at least republicans are consistent with their values and their f***ery. at least they'll stab u in your chest rather than your back the way democrats do.



trump's presidency at least imo has been more traditional republican orthodox than the media, or anyone for that matter constantly make it out to be. washington has changed trump more than trump has changed washington. he ran a campaign based on draining the swamp and attacking the establishment, yet like i said his policies are mainstream republicanism. the only real reason people are up in arms about him is because of his tweeting and brashness @ rallies, etc.

trump didn't dismantle the gop - the gop is plenty strong... at least compared to these weak democrats in washington. they know how to fight, they know how to win elections and they don't apologize for shit. if anything, trump has and is dismantling the democratic party and the media. after all, he did beat them all.

They didn't learn how to fight until Trump became the president and John McCain became a nobody. They all wanted to "take the high road" like George W Bush and act like the mainstream/entertainment/sports media didn't play a role in influencing people's votes.

Look at the difference between Bush after his presidency vs. what Obama is doing now. It's night and day. Bush-like establishment republicans don't understand this while Trump does. There are mulitple venues know to influence culture outside of hollywood/mainstream media and Trump is utilizing this as much as he can. He says dumb shit on Twitter but it's better than having it filtered through the media who can then control the narrative.

Look no further than a post by MaxFly admitting this by posting a headline from a politico article about the Mueller testimony saying, "This is what the Dems are trying to do. Create headlines like these." The media is doing the dems bidding so they don't have to fight.

Ted Cruz just zinged Beto the other day via twitter when Beto asked on a late night TV show "Where is Ted Cruz when you need him?"

Ted Cruz responds with "...in the senate"

That zing would've never been a tool of Ted Cruz until Trump came along.

[diamenz]

They didn't learn how to fight until Trump became the president and John McCain became a nobody. They all wanted to "take the high road" like George W Bush and act like the mainstream/entertainment/sports media didn't play a role in influencing people's votes.

Look at the difference between Bush after his presidency vs. what Obama is doing now. It's night and day. Bush-like establishment republicans don't understand this while Trump does. There are mulitple venues know to influence culture outside of hollywood/mainstream media and Trump is utilizing this as much as he can. He says dumb shit on Twitter but it's better than having it filtered through the media who can then control the narrative.

Look no further than a post by MaxFly admitting this by posting a headline from a politico article about the Mueller testimony saying, "This is what the Dems are trying to do. Create headlines like these." The media is doing the dems bidding so they don't have to fight.

Ted Cruz just zinged Beto the other day via twitter when Beto asked on a late night TV show "Where is Ted Cruz when you need him?"

Ted Cruz responds with "...in the senate"

That zing would've never been a tool of Ted Cruz until Trump came along.

u have a point - trump really has set the tone in a new age of politics. his style of playing politics has brushed off on a lot of republican congressman and in addition to that, democrats simply can't figure out how to deal with him. or dems will say, oh - we'll just sit back and let him self-destruct. trump can't govern for shit imo, but his style of politics is unrivaled. his ability to instill fear and rile up his base, mislead and lie and shun the media is... um, unrivaled for the lack of a better word. i'm not at all mocking trump when i say those things either - it works for him and it wrecks the opposition. more power to him for that, i guess. it's not his fault dems are weak and stand for nothing.

despite that, i still think washington has changed trump more than he's changed washington. every president has a vision with big eyes going in, and they come out on the other end just another beaten up vet laughing at the next optimistic rookie on their way in. u just can't beat the checks & balances, man. same shit with obama.

[Hawker]

u have a point - trump really has set the tone in a new age of politics. his style of playing politics has brushed off on a lot of republican congressman and in addition to that, democrats simply can't figure out how to deal with him. or dems will say, oh - we'll just sit back and let him self-destruct. trump can't govern for shit imo, but his style of politics is unrivaled. his ability to instill fear and rile up his base, mislead and lie and shun the media is... um, unrivaled for the lack of a better word. i'm not at all mocking trump when i say those things either - it works for him and it wrecks the opposition. more power to him for that, i guess. it's not his fault dems are weak and stand for nothing.

despite that, i still think washington has changed trump more than he's changed washington. every president has a vision with big eyes going in, and they come out on the other end just another beaten up vet laughing at the next optimistic rookie on their way in. u just can't beat the checks & balances, man. same shit with obama.

He's only doing something different as a republican - what he's doing the media/mainstream culture has been doing for the democrats for awhile now. Democrats know this as well.

No doubt Washington has changed Trump in some ways. He is actually draining the swamp a bit though.

The US department of agriculture is relocating people to Kansas City from DC - you know closer where the actual shit is grown. And some employees threw an absolute hissy fit about it.

The BLS is also relocating people to Grand Junction - again, closer to the west where the majority of BLS land is. This all makes sense. Be closer to where the shit is and actually meet some of the people that do the jobs you're supposed to regulate. This will also allow individuals who actually know the land and want to work for these departments be more attracted to these jobs - not city dwellers who have no interest in actually playing on this land or meeting farmers.

[NumberSix]

u have a point - trump really has set the tone in a new age of politics.
Trump is a Republican who behaves like a Democrat. Make no mistake about it. The media would absolutely LOVE this shit if Trump was on the blue team.

[Jasper]

lov these both party pat on the back vids

:rolleyes: :facepalm :rolleyes:

[Hawker]

You honestly believed that propaganda, didn't ya :roll:

She conveniently skipped right over the Southern Strategy employed by the GOP right after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is true that the Republican Party USED to be the racially tolerant party while the Democratic Party was the racist party of the Klan. But after the Southern Strategy, a realignment happened, thats how the south went from blue to red. OP, whats your explanation of this shift from blue to red?

:facepalm

I think the southern strategy definitely existed but I don't think it worked the way you think it did. You basically making the assumption they brainwashed the entire south. I'm sure that's what you think happened but that's a hefty assumption. I think you're the one listening to the propaganda - the southern strategy has been taught in public schools and everyone's been taught not to question it. Luckily, there are other sources of information other than establishment textbooks today.

The quotes you just posted - there are historians listed that question the souther strategy and say there were other things at play. I don't see how the southern strategy should be a more accepted theory. It's just been taught that we aren't supposed to question it to maintain that republicans are a bunch of RACISSSSTTTSSS!!!

They switched because of the different values. Only Strom Thurmond switched parties after the civil rights. No other democrat did. The freaking governor of Louisiana is a democrat and the former one was Bobby Jindal, a brown republican.

Man that woman's accent in the video is sexy af.

[ScalsFan21]

Obviously the Southern strategy had a huge impact on both parties, that's not just establishment wisdom. I guess it's fair to debate the extent of that impact (none of us were alive to experience it in action), but at bare minimum it caused the most recent major political realignment, and nothing since has come close. Dinesh might disagree with me though. :lol

But I have to agree about Cruz's newfound Trumpian wit, Hawk. It's annoying that he's somehow managing to weaponize his smarm and turn it into charm.

Speaking of, why is Beto still in this presidential race?

[Hawker]

Obviously the Southern strategy had a huge impact on both parties, that's not just establishment wisdom. I guess it's fair to debate the extent of that impact (none of us were alive to experience it in action), but at bare minimum it caused the most recent major political realignment, and nothing since has come close. Dinesh might disagree with me though. :lol

But I have to agree about Cruz's newfound Trumpian wit, Hawk. It's annoying that he's somehow managing to weaponize his smarm and turn it into charm.

Speaking of, why is Beto still in this presidential race?

I think the compromise is probably in the middle - I just think there's a different element to it and I think the point about democrats still being elected as senators there for two decades after is a good counter point.

Cruz's beard was a fantastic political move. It made him more likable and showed some personality in him. Republicans don't have to be the social clean cut purists - show some ****ing personality.

Dan Crenshaw has a goddamn eye patch and that's probably going to give him a political edge.

Beto is a pandering clown stealing from Bernie and Kamala Harris.

[Patrick Chewing]

I think the compromise is probably in the middle - I just think there's a different element to it and I think the point about democrats still being elected as senators there for two decades after is a good counter point.

Cruz's beard was a fantastic political move. It made him more likable and showed some personality in him. Republicans don't have to be the social clean cut purists - show some ****ing personality.

Dan Crenshaw has a goddamn eye patch and that's probably going to give him a political edge.

Beto is a pandering clown stealing from Bernie and Kamala Harris.


Crenshaw has been the only Republican the Left has been forced to apologize to. He has an unbelievable favorability rating right now.

[bladefd]

I think the southern strategy definitely existed but I don't think it worked the way you think it did. You basically making the assumption they brainwashed the entire south. I'm sure that's what you think happened but that's a hefty assumption. I think you're the one listening to the propaganda - the southern strategy has been taught in public schools and everyone's been taught not to question it. Luckily, there are other sources of information other than establishment textbooks today.

The quotes you just posted - there are historians listed that question the souther strategy and say there were other things at play. I don't see how the southern strategy should be a more accepted theory. It's just been taught that we aren't supposed to question it to maintain that republicans are a bunch of RACISSSSTTTSSS!!!

They switched because of the different values. Only Strom Thurmond switched parties after the civil rights. No other democrat did. The freaking governor of Louisiana is a democrat and the former one was Bobby Jindal, a brown republican.

Man that woman's accent in the video is sexy af.

The platform essentially flipped under.. Idea encapsulated in "I didn't leave the party but the party left me".. Once the party that was all for social movements became something else altogether, Democrat party became that

[bladefd]

1. You don’t know what the words “conservative” or “progressive” mean.

2. The Democrats were never for small government. There’s nothing bigger government than having laws banning “race mixing”, forcing businesses to be segregated, having laws that force people to sit on particular parts of a bus, segregated schools, etc.

They disingenuously were against federal government power only because they didn’t want the federal government getting in the way of their big state government.

3. Republicans are still for the exact same civil rights they were for at the time for the exact reasons.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans actually believe in the constitution. Democrats refused to adhere to the 14th amendment constitution which made racial discrimination (segregation) illegal.

You can argue what you want to, but I can guarantee you the Democrat platform is very different from 70-80yrs ago. Same with Republican.

Democrat party used to be conservative of the 2 and Republican more progressive of the two. Another fact.

Democrat party that initially stemmed out from Thomas Jefferson promoted small government and state government, and it was that way for much of the 19th century. There was a sort of switch in platform along the way. That's a fact.

Another fact is you cannot handle the truth because it's very unlike the world you see today where Republican party is cherries & joy and Democrat party is this evil witch. That's a fact.

[Hawker]

The platform essentially flipped under.. Idea encapsulated in "I didn't leave the party but the party left me".. Once the party that was all for social movements became something else altogether, Democrat party became that

So it took 2 plus decades for the switch? That's quite a long time.

[NumberSix]

The platform essentially flipped under.. Idea encapsulated in "I didn't leave the party but the party left me".. Once the party that was all for social movements became something else altogether, Democrat party became that
Nobody is denying that the Democrat party changed. It obviously did.

You

[NumberSix]

Democrat party used to be conservative of the 2 and Republican more progressive of the two. Another fact.
Not a fact. Like I said, you don

[bladefd]

So it took 2 plus decades for the switch? That's quite a long time.

Well, it started under FDR so late-30s. Took a few decades to be apparent that the platforms of the 2 parties changed. It wasn't overnight.

[bladefd]

Nobody is denying that the Democrat party changed. It obviously did.

You’re claiming that not only did the Democrat party change, but the Republican also changed into being what the Democrat used to be. This has no basis in reality whatsoever. The Democrat party was an outright segregationist party. The Republican Party didn’t “switch” into becoming the segregation party. Both parties are anti-segregation.

The Democrats NEVER were a “state’s rights” party. Their “state’s rights” claims were never legitimate claims. The things they were doing were clearly in violation of the constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. Republicans are the party of legitimate state’s rights. Republicans also, rightly, were against the Democrats’ illegitimate state’s rights claims. Violating the 14th amendment isn’t a state’s right.

To quite a big degree, yes. Like I said multiple posts earlier, it was not a perfect mirror image flip..

Republican party was certainly the progressive of the 2, wanting reform. Democrat party wanted things to stay the way they were - hence conservative. In fact, you might go as far as to say that if you were a classical liberal, you would probably have been a Republican throughout the 19th century and early 20th. Progressivism wasn't an anti-Constitution movement.. What the hell are you going on about with complete nonsense?

Democratic-Republican party began under Jefferson. Jefferson was all about states' rights and that party was strong in the South. What was confusing is they were also sometimes referred to as Republican party, but it is certainly not today's Republican party we know of.

Democratic-Republican party split into Democratic party (birth of Democratic party of today with different views) and Whig party (ended up dying). Abraham Lincoln was a Whig before it died then he joined the Republican party (Republican party that exists today with different views) as did all other Whig members from the North. Anyways, Democratic party at that point was largely Southern farmers and they swore for states' rights.

[MaxFly]

To quite a big degree, yes. Like I said multiple posts earlier, it was not a perfect mirror image flip..

Republican party was certainly the progressive of the 2, wanting reform. Democrat party wanted things to stay the way they were - hence conservative. In fact, you might go as far as to say that if you were a classical liberal, you would probably have been a Republican throughout the 19th century and early 20th. Progressivism wasn't an anti-Constitution movement..

Pretty much spot on.

[NumberSix]

Democrat party wanted things to stay the way they were - hence conservative.
As I said, you don

[bladefd]

As I said, you don’t know what these words mean. The Cuban communist party also wants things to stay the way they are. That, of course, doesn’t make them conservatives.

Democrats what to keep current abortion law the same. Republicans want to change it. The Democrats obviously don’t hold the conservative position here.

Conservative =/= supporting the status quo.

I think I understand your point now. What is generally true is that a progressive person wants change fast, today! Conservative has a longing for the past, wanting things to return to how they were or stay how they are from getting more progressive/liberal. That's my understanding of the two terms.

Another thing that is also true.. What is considered conservative and progressive changes from generation to generation. Our idea of conservatives today is they have a longing for the past, but they are referring to the 60s/70s past, not the 19th century past. Progressives are typically looking forward from their current generation. So yes, it varies by generations/eras so I admit it becomes difficult to judge 19th century democrats to 21st century democrats. It's very different times we are talking and very different ideas/people/issues so I admit that. Same goes for Republicans. Abraham Lincoln was muuuch different than anyone in Republican party now. The Republican party today is world's apart from Lincoln's party.

[Prometheus]

Conservative = Saturn

Progressive = Uranus

[NumberSix]

I think I understand your point now. What is generally true is that a progressive person wants change fast, today! Conservative has a longing for the past, wanting things to return to how they were or stay how they are from getting more progressive/liberal. That's my understanding of the two terms.