• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A frustrated radio show caller

He stayes that there is a difference. Duh!

But the Pro-slavery people were liberal and conservative Democrats. Not Republican.

And there was no true switch. That is the Dems/Liberals trying to rewrite history.
And the so-called Southern Strategy, while it does have a few parts of factuality to it, is mostly a myth.



The Real Story of the Un-Solid South

At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home. The truth, as Trende convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite: ...

The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority | RedState

Hahaha! Rewrite history...that's funny. The Southern Strategy isn't "so-called it" was litterally created and penned by a Nixon advisor and was written and talked about by Republican strategist before Nixon.
 
Sorry that you can't take the truth that Cons believed in Slavery and liberals fought against it. Maybe after you graduate highschool you will get past all the Con BS of your parents. My hopes are with you.
And as I already said you are sorely mistaken.
And maybe after you grow up a bit and read more, you will get past all the Dem/Lib brainwashing and be able to understand just why you are wrong.
 
Hahaha! Rewrite history...that's funny. The Southern Strategy isn't "so-called it" was litterally created and penned by a Nixon advisor and was written and talked about by Republican strategist before Nixon.
I suggest you read the link that was in the quote of me.


Btw.

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[9] but merely popularized it.[10] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I suggest you read the link that was in the quote of me.


Btw.

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[9] but merely popularized it.[10] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mentioned it was tossed around before Nixon. How does that mesh with your "So-Called" Southern Strategy that apparently is a rewrite of history by Liberals.
 
I mentioned it was tossed around before Nixon. How does that mesh with your "So-Called" Southern Strategy that apparently is a rewrite of history by Liberals.

You are apparently confused as to what was said.
Although it is clearly written as two different things, let me double space it for you so you can tell the difference.


But the Pro-slavery people were liberal and conservative Democrats. Not Republican.

And there was no true switch. That is the Dems/Liberals trying to rewrite history.
[highlight]                                                                                                                                    [/highlight]
And the so-called Southern Strategy, while it does have a few parts of factuality to it, is mostly a myth.


The Real Story of the Un-Solid South

At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home. The truth, as Trende convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite: ...

And you might want to try reading the above.
 
And there was no true switch. That is the Dems/Liberals trying to rewrite history.

You're wrong. Before FDR, Democrats won the south and Republicans won the North, although it can't be stated so plainly. It's complicated because every candidate is different than the one that came before them, and alignments constantly change, but the few states that were set in blue brick stone for the Democrats were all in the south during the late 19th and early 20th century. Now those same states are the ones we see the religious right bank on. What's more likely, that everybody in the South moved to the North just as everybody in the North moved to the South; or that new issues (most likely social issues) were approached differently by the two parties thus polarizing Americans and causing many of them to effectively switch parties?

I'm sure we've all heard that the Civil Rights Act was the catalyst for this change, but whether or not you believe that, there certainly was a shift in political identity by region which was as much of a "switch" as there will ever be. It doesn't matter, does it? And it shouldn't be the case that such useless qualities as colors and titles would be more important to us than what our ancestors did for us and taught us to do for those.
 
Last edited:
You're wrong. Before FDR, Democrats won the south and Republicans won the North, although it can't be stated so plainly. It's complicated because every candidate is different than the one that came before them, and alignments constantly change, but the few states that were set in blue brick stone for the Democrats were all in the south during the late 19th and early 20th century. Now those same states are the ones we see the religious right bank. What's more likely, that everybody in the South moved to the North just as everybody in the North moved to the South?

I'm sure we've all heard that the Civil Rights Act was the catalyst for this change, but whether or not you believe that, there certainly was a shift in political identity by region which was as much of a "switch" as there will ever be. It doesn't matter, does it? And it shouldn't be the case that such useless qualities as colors and titles would be more important to us than what our ancestors did for us and taught us to do for those.
Sorry, not wrong.

The Real Story of the Un-Solid South

At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home. The truth, as Trende convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite: ...

The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority | RedState

You might want to try reading the above.
 
You are apparently confused as to what was said.
Although it is clearly written as two different things, let me double space it for you so you can tell the difference.


But the Pro-slavery people were liberal and conservative Democrats. Not Republican.



By "Pro-Slavery" I take this to mean anti-Civil Rights since slavery was well gone by the time of the "switch" in question. It was also not a party vote as much as a regional vote. Southern Republicans voted against civil right as did Southern Democrats. Northern Democrats voted for Civil Rights as did Northern Republicans.

And there was no true switch. That is the Dems/Liberals trying to rewrite history.
Sure...Barry Goldwater didn't speak out against the Civil Rights legislation and win the Deep South as a Republican. Johnson didn't famously say "we've lost the South for a generation". The individuals that lived during the time period didn't recognize that Civil Rights had large implications for the political parties. That's all made up by Liberals jumping in time machines or falsley quoting people.

And the so-called Southern Strategy, while it does have a few parts of factuality to it, is mostly a myth.
From wiki which you sourced earlier

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[

And you might want to try reading the above.
When you're claiming this massive rewrite of history it's pretty telling that you reference RedState...which isn't in anyway known as some unbaised academic source and has no qualms about pushing information that is highly partisan. Just sayin, maybe you're "facts" are influenced by something other than history. I'll throw that out there.
 
When you're claiming this massive rewrite of history it's pretty telling that you reference RedState...which isn't in anyway known as some unbaised academic source and has no qualms about pushing information that is highly partisan. Just sayin, maybe you're "facts" are influenced by something other than history. I'll throw that out there.
:slapme:

Who do you think is going to dispute the Dem/Lib idiocy? Them?
No. It wouldn't be done by them.

So I provide it again. Hopefully you will give it a read.


The Real Story of the Un-Solid South

At the center of the Southern Strategy myth is the idea that Republicans used the race card to seduce Democratic voters in the South into leaving their natural partisan home. The truth, as Trende convincingly demonstrates, is the opposite: ...

The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority | RedState

You might want to try reading the above by Dan McLaughlin.

And then when you are finished you can follow-up with reading what was referenced in the above.
Maybe it will undo some of the liberal indoctrination you have received.


Misunderstanding the Southern Realignment - By Sean Trende | RealClearPolitics

Why Southern Republicanism? By Jay Cost| The Weekly Standard

Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does? By Gerard Alexander| The Washington Post

The Party of Civil Rights - Kevin D. Williamson | National Review Online
 
Last edited:
Oh I love rants like this. Yep, the war on poverty was meant by design to keep the black person down, even though most welfare recipients are white.

Keep on the revisionist history, it's all the dirty righties have left because they are ashamed that conservatism was the root of slavery and segregation. It was liberalism that ended slavery and segregation.

The war on poverty didn't do poor whites a whole lot of good, either, the difference being that they are a smaller segment of the white population compared to the proportion of blacks who were, and remain, poor. I figure Southern democrats thought that if you want to make an omlet...

I'll admit that my theory is a little far fetched, even if LBJ and other Southern Democrats did openly admit that they were motivated by fears of blacks and others rising up when they crafted the war on poverty. But if Democrats were trying to destroy the black community they could hardly have done a better job of it.
 
How about this blast from the past?

1956 republicans.jpg
 
The war on poverty didn't do poor whites a whole lot of good, either, the difference being that they are a smaller segment of the white population compared to the proportion of blacks who were, and remain, poor. I figure Southern democrats thought that if you want to make an omlet...

I'll admit that my theory is a little far fetched, even if LBJ and other Southern Democrats did openly admit that they were motivated by fears of blacks and others rising up when they crafted the war on poverty. But if Democrats were trying to destroy the black community they could hardly have done a better job of it.

The reason it's far fethced is look at the percentage of blacks on welfare. If you were trying to keep the "black man down", you would have to create a system where the MAJORITY of blacks are dependent. That is not the case. There is not 51% or more of blacks on welfare or in poverty.

I'm not saying that the by-product of welfare is good, nor am I saying that our current welfare system is prefect and without flaws. It does in fact need reform. The main point I am trying to get across in this thread is that welfare was NOT created to keep the black man down. That's it.
 
The main point I am trying to get across in this thread is that welfare was NOT created to keep the black man down. That's it.

And, as I said, if Democrats were intending to destroy the black community, black culture, and keep the black people down, they could hardly have done a better job of it.
 
The reason it's far fethced is look at the percentage of blacks on welfare. If you were trying to keep the "black man down", you would have to create a system where the MAJORITY of blacks are dependent. That is not the case. There is not 51% or more of blacks on welfare or in poverty.

I'm not saying that the by-product of welfare is good, nor am I saying that our current welfare system is prefect and without flaws. It does in fact need reform. The main point I am trying to get across in this thread is that welfare was NOT created to keep the black man down. That's it.

Oh the majority of blacks are living in poverty or on welfare - at least in my neck of the woods.
 
And, as I said, if Democrats were intending to destroy the black community, black culture, and keep the black people down, they could hardly have done a better job of it.

Democrats just use blacks for their vote. I think most democrat politicians are too damn dumb to see that what they're doing is wrong - I think most actually believe they're doing good. In reality they're keeping them down by financially supporting them.

Voting for someone because they (taxpayers/government) financially support someone is not a good reason to vote...
 
Democrats just use blacks for their vote. I think most democrat politicians are too damn dumb to see that what they're doing is wrong - I think most actually believe they're doing good. In reality they're keeping them down by financially supporting them.

Voting for someone because they (taxpayers/government) financially support someone is not a good reason to vote...

So the "job creators" shouldn't vote for Republicans?
 
You are absolutely, inarguably, 100% correct!

According to the most recent "Characteristics of Food Stamp Households and Participants" report available from the US Census Bureau: 32% (10.6 million) of the food stamp recipients are white and 22% (7.4 million) are black.

Also according to Census, there are 308 million people in the US of A. Of those: 78% (240 million) are white/non-Hispanic and 13% (40 million) are black.

Using nice round numbers, and doing a little math: that means 5% (1 out of 20) of the white population participate in the food stamp programs, while 19% (4 out of 20) of the black population participate.

But then, that's not conducive to your divisive "black v. white" argument.

Too bad your statistics are irrelevant given the actual percentages of welfare recipients by race. Since we are tallking about racial politics here that is what matters. Look what happens when unemployment statistics are thrown around. The higher rates among blacks is always emphasized. You can't have it both ways in an argument.
 
And, as I said, if Democrats were intending to destroy the black community, black culture, and keep the black people down, they could hardly have done a better job of it.

Sure they could, slavery could still exist. THAT would be worse than welfare. And please don't give me the "welfare is slavery" because it isn't.
 
Oh the majority of blacks are living in poverty or on welfare - at least in my neck of the woods.

Well that's where you live and not the indicator for ALL blacks in the U.S. Where I live mostly whites are in poverty near my area. Sorry to burst your buble, but where you live isn't the center of the universe and neither is mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom