One More Fabrication: “The Southern Strategy”

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, it makes perfect sense that the Democrats would run to the Republican Party, who voted in greater numbers for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, and who even in those halcyon days - though not so diametrically opposed as today due to a certain inexplicable disbelief - considered Democrats to be Communist influenced. Members of Congress would by rights have followed their voters's sentiments to keep their jobs.

Yessir. Perfect sense.

Northern Democrats did not jump the aisle to the Republican side during that time frame in any large numbers, only White Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats).

It is illogical and not factual in the extreme to claim the southern Democrats "jumped the aisle" to the Republicans when it was the Republicans who voted into law the act that raised the Democrat's ire. Everett Dirkson rammed it right down their throats.

How did they all become Republican then? Republicans saw a golden opportunity in the south. They sold their soul to the racists for political power.

They did not. Perhaps some saw the error of their ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by the Democrats. Robert Byrd filibustered 14 hours against it, and remained a Democrat till his death. The Republicans rammed it into law.

Your "Southern Strategy" fiction is not even marginally logical.

Southern Dems were conservatives. That is why it was easy for them to switch to the GOP when the Dems betrayed them by taking up the Civil Rights flag...the GOP capitalized on that golden opportunity...and sold their soul.

Stop playing with the language....it's a lie.

The lever they pulled said 'Democrat.'



1. Language is important, so in any discussion of who the segregationists were, liberals switch the word “Democrats” to “southerners.” Remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was supported by all the Republicans in the Senate, but only 29 of 47 Democrats…and a number of the ‘segregationist’ Democrats were northern Dems (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming). Not southerners: Democrats.
See "Mugged," by Coulter

a. There were plenty of southern integrationists. They were Republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In order to hide their racist background, the Democrats/Liberals have developed a story line that the party created to end slavery somehow decided to ‘flip’ and become an endorser of racism….and then engaged in a ‘Southern Strategy’ to win the racist vote in the South.

Bogus.

Time to blow up that lie.





1.The facts are simple: The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
To obfuscate this and fortify it, the Democrats have largely used lies and violence.

One truly sophomoric attempt has been the ‘flip flop’ pretense, that a century after the Civil War, still sulking because the Republicans pried their slaves away from them, they tried to claim that the party formed to fight the Democrats and slavery, suddenly became the racists.

The lie is easily defeated by asking any reliable Democrat voter what the chances are that they would suddenly become Trump supporters.




2. Unable to comprehend that Southern Americans are not the racists that the Democrats are, they had to find some explanation for their ancient base, the South, turning to vote Republican. Sooo….they claimed that Nixon campaigned as a racist to gain the Deep South, to win over the Dixiecrats and segregationists to the Republican fold.

Of course, problem #1 is that the Democrats cannot provide a single example of an explicitly racist pitch in the campaign. There never was one.



3. “The two biggest issues in the 1968 campaign were the Vietnam War…and the anti-war movement….

Nixon campaigned on a strong anti-communist, law and order platform. While embracing the welfare state- Nixon was no conservative on domestic issues- he also railed against what he termed ‘the excesses of bleeding heart liberalism.’” "Death Of A Nation,” Dinesh D’Souza, p. 203




4.”Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- (that Southern Strategy) it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.”
Coulter, Mugged



Soooo....what happened to the Southern voter?

They behaved as good Americans, refused to support racist Democrats, and the racist voters aged out....and died.

Rectitude and Republicans won out.

The "southern strategy" was to dumb down the white conservative voter to the education level of the south to elect racist xenophobic leaders without question.

It has worked as the GOP has become a Know Nothing party of the dumb led by the don.


Deal with it.

Ummmm...no it wasn't. It was smaller government.

Nope, not even close.


White privilege requires a lot of government.

So you believe that racists left the Democratic Party - which was the Party of slavery, segregation and racism, to join the party that ended slavery, segregation and racism and you believe that makes sense?

The republic party didn’t end slavery. It won the “war of northern aggression “ to preserve a strong federal government.

The republic party didn’t end segregation because reverse racism still exists.

The republic party didn’t end segregation or racism because without LBJ the Civil Rights Law never would have passed and Barry Goldwater would have his republic vice.


Next

This Barry Goldwater???



"Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. He was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona, donating the equivalent of several thousand dollars to the organization’s efforts to integrate the public schools. When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S. military. As the Washington Post said, Goldwater “ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”

Goldwater not only had personally promoted desegregation, he belonged to a party that had been fighting for civil rights for the previous century against Democratic obstructionism. Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. "

[See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.] Christian Camerota, “Reinventing the Right,” p. 28.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The republic party didn’t end slavery. It won the “war of northern aggression “ to preserve a strong federal government.

Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others.

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]

In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.

“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91

In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.

Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856)

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott

Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction

The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage.

2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860

The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.

2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.

5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Republican Party National Platform, 1860


Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 63% Democrat opposition.

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “Black Codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination.

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves.

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans.

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”.

It kind of sounds to me like the Republican Party ended slavery.

Nope, fake history.

Gads, you're a moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is illogical and not factual in the extreme to claim the southern Democrats "jumped the aisle" to the Republicans when it was the Republicans who voted into law the act that raised the Democrat's ire. Everett Dirkson rammed it right down their throats.

How did they all become Republican then? Republicans saw a golden opportunity in the south. They sold their soul to the racists for political power.

They did not. Perhaps some saw the error of their ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by the Democrats. Robert Byrd filibustered 14 hours against it, and remained a Democrat till his death. The Republicans rammed it into law.

Your "Southern Strategy" fiction is not even marginally logical.

Southern Dems were conservatives. That is why it was easy for them to switch to the GOP when the Dems betrayed them by taking up the Civil Rights flag...the GOP capitalized on that golden opportunity...and sold their soul.

Completely funny.

That's why the Democrats joined George Wallace and Bull Conner in bashing them Negroes' heads in during the Civil Rights Movement.

I am from that time, goober. I know what happened.

Those were Dixiecrats.

The same douchbags who jumped ship to the Republican side of the aisle after the 1964 passage of the Civil RIghts Act.

"... jumped ship to the Republican side of the aisle after the 1964 passage of the Civil RIghts Act."

Never happened.



"...after the 1948 elections, most of the Dixiecrat elected officials returned to the Democrat Party and remained for the rest of their lives.

After losing the 1968 presidential race, George Wallace returned to the Democrat Party and ran for governor of Alabama in 1982. With enthusiastic support from the democrats, Wallace won the election with 57 percent of the vote."
blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.








I told you to take a seat..do it now...in the back row.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The republic party didn’t end segregation because reverse racism still exists.

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

September 3, 1868

25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

September 12, 1868

Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate – all Republicans – were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later be reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868

Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868

While campaigning for re-election, U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who were organized as the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869

Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs First-in-nation law granting women the right to vote and to hold public office.

February 3, 1870

After passing the U.S. House of Representatives with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, which granted the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race.

May 31, 1870

President Ulysses S. Grant signs the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving civil rights to any Americans.

June 22, 1870

The Republican-controlled Congress creates the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870

Women vote in Wyoming during the first election after women’s suffrage legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871

Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871

The Republican-controlled Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

October 10, 1871

Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against blacks voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, and his military funeral was attended by thousands.

October 18, 1871

After violence was committed against Republicans in South Carolina, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872

Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.

January 17, 1874

Armed Democrats seize the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate the Texas government.

September 14, 1874

Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg. 27 people were killed.

March 1, 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

"Black men participated in Georgia politics for the first time during Congressional Reconstruction (1867-76). Between 1867 and 1872 sixty-nine African Americans served as delegates to the constitutional convention (1867-68) or as members of the state legislature.

Democrats used terror, intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan to "redeem" the state. One quarter of the black legislators were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. In the December 1870 elections the Democrats won an overwhelming victory. In 1906 W. H. Rogers from McIntosh County was the last black legislator to be elected before blacks were legally disenfranchised in 1908."

Black Legislators during Reconstruction

"One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.” An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”"

"The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan."


Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919

July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns ?duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

Considering the republic inspired Nixon southern strategy in 1968, no wonder all substance stopped in 1965.

Additionally, which party now has more diversity in both ethnicity and gender?

Which party has all those southern Dixiecrats?


Which party is dave duke in and which side did republic trump praise in Charlottesville?

There was no such strategy.

The lie is meant to fuel morons like you.


Why mention David Duke.....Democrat????


David Duke....the Democrat

State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia



Duke left the KKK long before he became a Republicans....


"In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind."

David Duke - Wikipedia





David Duke, in both his formative years, when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which party has all those southern Dixiecrats?

Do you have anything post 1965?

"Do you have anything post 1965?"


Sure....Bill Clinton saying that Obama was better suited to carrying a white man's bags than running for President.
2008

"Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'"
Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'


Did you vote for this racist????

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It is illogical and not factual in the extreme to claim the southern Democrats "jumped the aisle" to the Republicans when it was the Republicans who voted into law the act that raised the Democrat's ire. Everett Dirkson rammed it right down their throats.

How did they all become Republican then? Republicans saw a golden opportunity in the south. They sold their soul to the racists for political power.

They did not. Perhaps some saw the error of their ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by the Democrats. Robert Byrd filibustered 14 hours against it, and remained a Democrat till his death. The Republicans rammed it into law.

Your "Southern Strategy" fiction is not even marginally logical.

Southern Dems were conservatives. That is why it was easy for them to switch to the GOP when the Dems betrayed them by taking up the Civil Rights flag...the GOP capitalized on that golden opportunity...and sold their soul.

Completely funny.

That's why the Democrats joined George Wallace and Bull Conner in bashing them Negroes' heads in during the Civil Rights Movement.

I am from that time, goober. I know what happened.

Those were Dixiecrats.

The same douchbags who jumped ship to the Republican side of the aisle after the 1964 passage of the Civil RIghts Act.

Hysterically funny. Please explain how legislation to which they were completely opposed and that was voted into law by a Republican-led drive and a majority of Republican votes could be a catalyst driving the Democrats into the arms of the Republican Party.

The fiction is not logical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still waiting for someone to explain away how the GOP admitted to the Southern Strategy on 2 different occasions (at least) if its supposedly fiction? So far no one has been able to offer a sane explanation. Anyone of you intelligent repubs want to give it a swing?

Still waiting for a moron like you to show racism in the GOP platform, circa 1960....



7. Let’s blow the Democrat lie about a ‘Southern Strategy to get the racist vote’ out of the water.


Time to see just how 'racist' Nixon and the GOP were during that 'Southern Strategy' farrago.


“Tom Wicker, the progressive columnist for the New York Times, gave his appraisal of Nixon’s desegregation efforts. “There’s no doubt about it—the Nixon administration accomplished more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the 16 previous years or probably since. There’s no doubt either that it was Richard Nixon personally who conceived, orchestrated and led the administration’s desegregation effort . . . .That effort resulted in probably the outstanding domestic achievement of his administration.”

The Nixon Administration went even further, putting into effect the nation’s first affirmative action program. Dubbed the Philadelphia Plan, it imposed racial goals and timetables on the building trade unions first in Philadelphia and then throughout the country. Basically, Nixon moved to kick in the closed union door and to force racist Democratic unions to admit blacks.

The progressive legal scholar Neal Devins admits that Nixon’s Philadelphia Plan is “the genesis of affirmative action in government contracting and arguably all federal affirmative action programs.” The Switch That Never Happened: How the South Really Went GOP - American Greatness



Kind of makes is laughable to try to paint the Republicans as racist, huh?

One must be quite a moron to believe that propaganda.

 

[Correll]

What IF, I am correct, and the Southern Strategy is a myth?

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

 

[Correll]

How did they all become Republican then? Republicans saw a golden opportunity in the south. They sold their soul to the racists for political power.

They did not. Perhaps some saw the error of their ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by the Democrats. Robert Byrd filibustered 14 hours against it, and remained a Democrat till his death. The Republicans rammed it into law.

Your "Southern Strategy" fiction is not even marginally logical.

Southern Dems were conservatives. That is why it was easy for them to switch to the GOP when the Dems betrayed them by taking up the Civil Rights flag...the GOP capitalized on that golden opportunity...and sold their soul.

Completely funny.

That's why the Democrats joined George Wallace and Bull Conner in bashing them Negroes' heads in during the Civil Rights Movement.

I am from that time, goober. I know what happened.

Those were Dixiecrats.

The same douchbags who jumped ship to the Republican side of the aisle after the 1964 passage of the Civil RIghts Act.

Hysterically funny. Please explain how legislation to which they were completely opposed and that was voted into law by a Republican-led drive and a majority of Republican votes could be a catalyst driving the Democrats into the arms of the Republican Party.

The fiction is not logical.

AND that is only ONE of the huge fucking holes in the Myth.

 

[Mac1958]

I have no idea. I don't see how it matters right now, at this very moment.

What matters to me is that both ends of this issue refuse to look in the mirror.
.

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

 

[Correll]

How did they all become Republican then? Republicans saw a golden opportunity in the south. They sold their soul to the racists for political power.

They did not. Perhaps some saw the error of their ways.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was opposed by the Democrats. Robert Byrd filibustered 14 hours against it, and remained a Democrat till his death. The Republicans rammed it into law.

Your "Southern Strategy" fiction is not even marginally logical.

Southern Dems were conservatives. That is why it was easy for them to switch to the GOP when the Dems betrayed them by taking up the Civil Rights flag...the GOP capitalized on that golden opportunity...and sold their soul.

Completely funny.

That's why the Democrats joined George Wallace and Bull Conner in bashing them Negroes' heads in during the Civil Rights Movement.

I am from that time, goober. I know what happened.

Those were Dixiecrats.

The same douchbags who jumped ship to the Republican side of the aisle after the 1964 passage of the Civil RIghts Act.

Never happened.

"...after the 1948 elections, most of the Dixiecrat elected officials returned to the Democrat Party and remained for the rest of their lives.

After losing the 1968 presidential race, George Wallace returned to the Democrat Party and ran for governor of Alabama in 1982. With enthusiastic support from the democrats, Wallace won the election with 57 percent of the vote."
blackquillandink.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspblackquillandink Resources and Information.








I told you to take a seat..do it now...in the back row.

Though it is worth noting that Wallace's later wins, were AFTER he completely renounced his racist past.

 

[Correll]

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't think it would be relevant, if a third of the country, you thought was voting based on hate, was NOT?


You dont' think that would matter?

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

"...and current racism in America."


Sooooo.....why can't you provide any examples of such?


Perhaps you mean this sort....


Daily Caller and Arcadia Advocate ^
A student at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette admitted to fabricating an alleged attack by Donald Trump supporters Wednesday, in the wake of his shocking electoral victory. A currently unnamed woman called Lafayette police Wednesday claiming that two men had attacked her, screaming racial slurs and stealing both her wallet and the hijab she was wearing. The woman also said she was knocked to the ground by “something metal.” According to the woman, both of her attackers were white men, and one was wearing a Donald Trump hat. She said the attack happened around 11 am, with her two...

Or this...

"The University at Albany (SUNY-Albany) has expelled two black students and suspended a third after they were hit with charges related to a fake hate crime they reported earlier this year.

Ariel Agudio, Asha Burwell and Alexis Briggs grabbed national headlines in January after they claimed they were assaulted by a mob of white students while riding on a public bus.

“I just got jumped on a bus while people hit us and called us the ‘n’ word,’ and NO ONE helped us.” Burwell declared on Twitter that evening. “I begged for people to help us and instead of help they told us to ‘shut he f*ck up’ and continuously hit us in the head.”

...once police got involved, the three girls’ story rapidly unraveled. No fewer than 12 different cameras captured footage of the fight, and they revealed the bus incident actually involved the three girls attacking white passengers on the bus, rather than the other way around."
‘Hate Crime’ Victims Who Fooled Hillary Get EXPELLED


-Or this...

Tawana Glenda Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York, who gained notoriety in 1987–88 for falsely accusing six white men of having raped her.

The charges received widespread national attention because of her age (15), the persons accused (including police officers and a prosecuting attorney), and the shocking state in which Brawley was found after the alleged rape (in a trash bag, with racial slurs written on her body and covered in feces). Brawley's accusations were given widespread media attention in part from the involvement of her advisers, including the Reverend Al Sharpton and attorneys Alton H. Maddox and C. Vernon Mason.[1]

After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of an attack.[2] The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.[3]

Tawana Brawley rape allegations - Wikipedia




Can we agree that you are not only stupid, but are terminally indoctrinated????

 

[Mac1958]

No, I sure don't.

Some declaration that "the Southern Strategy is a myth" would not change minds, one iota.

Minorities are far more likely to look at what they actually see, such as a President who pretends not to know who David Duke is.
.

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

Sure, lay it on me.

Maybe we can get to a point here.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Can we agree that you are not only stupid, but are terminally indoctrinated????

Sure, sounds good.
.

 

[Correll]

Denouncing white supremacists is a trap for republicans, because every time we allow libs to ask us that, it supports the illusion that it is a reasonable question.


Trump tried to blow the question off. And that is what media focuses on, instead of the dozens of times in the past and since when he has denounced in one way or another, white supremacists.


The media is fucking you.


And US.


And I did not ask, what if there was a declaration that the southern strategy was a myth.


I asked you what if it truly was a myth?


What would that mean, in your opinion?

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

Sure, lay it on me.

Maybe we can get to a point here.
.

That it would be a GOOD thing.



Can you see that?

 

[Mac1958]

It would mean absolutely nothing, because I see what I see.

Pushing this off on the media is an old mechanism, and I can respond with "talk radio is blinding you".

If you really think that this discussion is going to change any minds, by all means, keep trying it.

It sure is easier than doing what this brave and honest man did:
....]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

Sure, lay it on me.

Maybe we can get to a point here.
.

That it would be a GOOD thing.



Can you see that?

If racism didn't exist? Sure!
.

 

[Correll]

What you see is framed by your preconceptions.


It would mean nothing? Really? IF this nation, was in reality far less racist then you currently believe, you think that would mean nothing?


How can you not see, as a hypothetical, that if the nation was far less racist than you currently believe,

THAT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING?

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

Sure, lay it on me.

Maybe we can get to a point here.
.

That it would be a GOOD thing.



Can you see that?

If racism didn't exist? Sure!
.

My words were, "vastly less racist".


Why did you feel a need to change that?

 

[Mac1958]

I don't understand this linear connection you're making between the Southern Strategy and current racism in America.

If you want to believe that racism no longer exists, and/or that it's no longer important, that's fine.

I know, first hand, that it's not reality. But I also know that there is nothing I can say or prove that will be good enough for you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
.

The Myth of the Southern Strategy is not an historical one. According to liberals, it is why the South is Republican TODAY.



I just asked you to consider the implications if America was vastly less racist than you currently think.


You were unable to consider it, even as a hypothetical.


I have to admit, that his strongly supports your point that discussion cannot change minds.


I was wondering if you would try to flip it around and ask me, "what if it WAS true, and American was vastly MORE racist than I thought?"


But I guess such speculation is off the table too.



Do you want to know what I was looking for, in your answer?

Sure, lay it on me.

Maybe we can get to a point here.
.

That it would be a GOOD thing.



Can you see that?

If racism didn't exist? Sure!
.

My words were, "vastly less racist".


Why did you feel a need to change that?

Sorry, it would be great if we were vastly less racist.

There ya go.

But I thought you said that racism either doesn't exist or isn't an issue. And PC is convinced that there is no racism.

Maybe you can have this conversation with her.
.