• 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!

Virginia governor orders Confederate flag removed from license plates

In the future the only place that you'll see the Confederate flag will be tattooed on racist loser's foreheads. :roll:

Read more about this topic here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/georgetown-law-professor-just-perfectly-223100907.html

Not likely going to happen in your life time. The conservative backlash from all this is that you will see confederate flags appearing everywhere all over the South on not public land. This "offensive" symbol will be used to taunt people at every opportunity. Beauregard's flag will have new life breathed into it because of the efforts to force its eradication.

Wait.And.See.
 
Perhaps not as not vocal about it as Jimmy Carter was. Being a Christian is almost a requirement when runing for POTUS.

So being Christian is almost a requirement, Ford and Carter were both Christian... but Carter won the Southern vote because he was Christian, not because he was a Democrat?

Yeah, back to the drawing board with that one, Pete.
 
Not likely going to happen in your life time. The conservative backlash from all this is that you will see confederate flags appearing everywhere all over the South on not public land. This "offensive" symbol will be used to taunt people at every opportunity. Beauregard's flag will have new life breathed into it because of the efforts to force its eradication.

Wait.And.See.



I'm going to wait and I'm sure that what we're going to see is that most Americans are tolerant and opposed to racist symbols.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
LBJ picked by Kennedy to get the southern vote. Obviously Kennedy was a slavery-loving racist who wanted those votes. :lol:
No one could win the presidency without the southern vote....until Obama.
 
Nice tryAmerican;1064751782]I accept your surrender.[/QUOTE]
 
Soooo, let me get this straight... Southern Democrats turned Republican after the Civil Rights act... except most of them, and the ones that stayed Democrat only stayed Democrat so that they could get elected.... because all the Southern states turned Republican.

Makes perfect sense! :lamo
Some people switched after the civil rights act and some switched after Reagan was elected. What's so hard to understand about that?


Chester Trent Lott, Sr. (born October 9, 1941) is a former United States Senator from Mississippi, who served in numerous leadership positions in both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. He entered Congress as one of the first of a wave of Republicans winning seats in Southern states that had been solidly Democratic. He became Senate Majority Leader, then fell from power after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat presidential bid.

In 1972, Colmer, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, announced his retirement after 40 years in Congress. He endorsed Lott as his successor in Mississippi's 5th District, located in the state's southwestern tip, even though Lott ran as a Republican. Lott won handily, in large part due to Richard Nixon's landslide victory in that year's presidential election. Nixon won the 5th district with an astonishing 87 percent of the vote; it was his strongest congressional district in the entire nation.[9]​


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott
 
Some people switched after the civil rights act and some switched after Reagan was elected. What's so hard to understand about that?

Chester Trent Lott, Sr. (born October 9, 1941) is a former United States Senator from Mississippi, who served in numerous leadership positions in both the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. He entered Congress as one of the first of a wave of Republicans winning seats in Southern states that had been solidly Democratic. He became Senate Majority Leader, then fell from power after praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat presidential bid.

In 1972, Colmer, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, announced his retirement after 40 years in Congress. He endorsed Lott as his successor in Mississippi's 5th District, located in the state's southwestern tip, even though Lott ran as a Republican. Lott won handily, in large part due to Richard Nixon's landslide victory in that year's presidential election. Nixon won the 5th district with an astonishing 87 percent of the vote; it was his strongest congressional district in the entire nation.[9]​

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

I already said there were a handful, but far from the flood that Democrat apologists want to claim. 95% of the Racist Southern Democrats remained racist Southern Democrats because the majority of racist southern Democrats were progressives, not conservatives. I'll also add that the vast majority of racist Southern Democrats were progressive because racist progressive Southern Democrats loved them some Eugenics, and the closest thing they had in the 60s and 70s to feed that urge was the abortion movement. They progressives (including the Southern Democrats) never let go of the idea of social engineering through genetics and turned their focus after 1964 on to legalized abortion and promoting the idea to poor black communities that abortion was the answer to financial success. The Democrats still push this idea today which is why there are some 10 million fewer black voters today than there would have been otherwise while black poverty is still prevalent.

I mean, put it this way, if there was a political party intent on destroying blacks in America they would be hard pressed to be as successful as the Democrats have been.
 
So being Christian is almost a requirement, Ford and Carter were both Christian... but Carter won the Southern vote because he was Christian, not because he was a Carter appealed largely to conservative Christian and rural votersDemocrat?

Yeah, back to the drawing board with that one, Pete.

There was probably many reasons why he won the south. Carter appealed largely to conservative Christian and rural voters; he was from the deep south, he was a former governor of Georgia and he was a peanut grower. And finally he ran against Gerald Ford. (btw, I voted for Ford)
 
There was probably many reasons why he won the south. Carter appealed largely to conservative Christian and rural voters; he was from the deep south, he was a former governor of Georgia and he was a peanut grower. And finally he ran against Gerald Ford. (btw, I voted for Ford)

He was also considered a political outsider - not one to be beholden to the Washington-ites. My parents voted for Carter because he was from rural America and was a farmer just like we were - they thought he'd have a more common sense view of the problems in Washington especially since Watergate was still only a few years in the past.
 
I'm going to wait and I'm sure that what we're going to see is that most Americans are tolerant and opposed to racist symbols.

You do that, and a couple generations later those tolerant Americans are still fighting over abortion because they are well known for their willingness to give in on petty things.
 
Oh dear god it's another one of these people who thinks banning confederate flags is the discussion.

Who keeps telling you guys this? What right-wing ****rag has been telling all of you "LIBRULS WANT TO BAN CONFEDERATE FLAGS," and why did you believe them?

I don't read right wing rags.. or left wing rags.. or any wing rags.

recheck your premise.
 
There was probably many reasons why he won the south. Carter appealed largely to conservative Christian and rural voters; he was from the deep south, he was a former governor of Georgia and he was a peanut grower. And finally he ran against Gerald Ford. (btw,
I voted for Ford)



Gerald Ford was a decent, honorable man. but I see his pardon of Nixon, no matter what justifications are given, as a huge mistake. But that's all water over the dam.
 
LBJ and Democrats including Al Gore the Science Whore's dad fought AGAINST the Civil Rights Act....they filibustered it in Congress.

FYI, about 100% of Democrats outside the former CSA voted for the CRA, as did about 100% of Republicans outside the CSA. About 100% of the opposition came from white male congressmen (almost all Democrats) from the Confederate states. It was a regional, not a party, thing.

And LBJ didn't fight the CRA or VRA. History is your friend.

After LBJ signed it he said "Ill have those NIGGERS voting Democratic for the next 200 years". Only 150 years of the poverty plantation left for blacks to suffer with....

No one actually knows if he said that. It's possible. He used that word often, but he also supported equal rights for blacks, and pushed for and signed legislation that helped them achieve civil rights in the South. So even if he said it, he did more for blacks than any POTUS since Lincoln. I'd bet if you were black at that time, you'd forgive his language and his supposed motivation for your own freedom and liberty.

If you're interested, there's a good discussion about the quote here: President LBJ: "I
 
JFK would have been bounced out of today's Democrat party, a party who today has more in common with the ideology of his assassin than they do with JFK.

There is no "Democrat" party, and if we want to play that game, Reagan would have been bounced out of today's Repugnant party.

And LBJ, well...

“I’ll have those n**** voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
- Lyndon B. Johnson

OK, and he supported and signed the CRA and VRA. Can you name a POTUS that did more to advance civil rights for blacks other than Lincoln?

The objection by the Republican to the wording of the Public Accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act (again, pushed by the classic liberal Kennedy and Republicans, not by the DNC) was that it ran afoul of existing SCOTUS precedent and could scuttle the Civil Rights act in a Supreme Court challenge.

You're usually better than this. LBJ, a democrat, was POTUS. The House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Obviously the southern democrats opposed it bitterly. So it defies logic and recorded history that democrats outside the South didn't support this bill - they went to the great lengths to get a very strong bill through the House committee chaired by a Democrat, then to bypass the Senate committee chaired by a racist white southern democrat (it was discharged to the floor without a committee vote, then to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

It took broad support from virtually everyone not a white racist Southerner, but you can't help but deny giving any credit at all to Democrats, and throw in a gratuitous snipe at Johnson who enthusiastically supported the legislation at every step of the way.

Of the 117 Democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964 only a handful, 5 by my count (Iris Blitch, Arlen Specter, Strom Thurmond, Howard Callaway and Charles Pickering), switched parties to become Republican, the rest of those racists stuck with the Democrats. That is a conversion rate of... 4.3%

Sooooo.. 95.7% of Democrat Congressmen who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stayed Democrat.

Hmmmmmm...

Old habits die hard. In many (at least) areas of the South there wasn't even a functioning GOP. In my dad's county in W. Tennessee, the democratic primary usually was the election because no republican bothered to run. If a republican did run, it was pro forma - the democrat won in landslides. According to him, there wasn't a republican elected official in his entire county.
 
No one actually knows if he said that. It's possible. He used that word often, but he also supported equal rights for blacks, and pushed for and signed legislation that helped them achieve civil rights in the South. So even if he said it, he did more for blacks than any POTUS since Lincoln. I'd bet if you were black at that time, you'd forgive his language and his supposed motivation for your own freedom and liberty.

If you're interested, there's a good discussion about the quote here: President LBJ: "I

It is definitely in his character to say it, the dude was a total prick.

If I were black in 2015 and could go back in time I would kick LBJ in the nuts for what his policies have done to black people.
 
It is definitely in his character to say it, the dude was a total prick.

The pricks were racist white southerners defending Jim Crow, not the person who pushed legislation to end it.

If I were black in 2015 and could go back in time I would kick LBJ in the nuts for what his policies have done to black people.

Yeah, great. I'm sure you've given it a lot of reasoned though.
 
I do not own or display a "Confederate" flag and have neither the desire nor intention to do so, even though I have non slave owning ancestors who fought for the South.

As a blacksmith, I have made countless odd & detailed Reproduction tools, artifacts & cannon parts for Civil War re-enactors whose fastidious attention to detail is impressive as eccentric as it may seem. To each his own

What I object to is the distorted notion that the "Civil War" aka "War between the States, aka "War of Northern Aggression" was fought primarily for "Freeing the Slaves".

I think that History will support me in that Lincoln despised African-Americans & that Abolition was simply a Propaganda initiative to seize the Moral High Ground. It was only a matter of time before slavery would have been phased out not just because of its cruelty & injustice but because of technological & economic reasons.

Even a cursory review of history & Colonialism establishes that an Industrialized State/Societies do not peacefully coexist beside agrarian States/Societies without making efforts to seize those resources.

While there were a multitude of factors involved, like most all wars, the "Civil War" was fought primarily for economic reasons / natural resources.

Except for the Civil War re-enactors I've met, the Confederate flag has, sadly, been hi-jacked ugly & racist hate groups. The "Professionally & Chronically Offended" in the "Offense Industry" will remain implacable & move on to another non-issue. Meanwhile, those who do find the "Confederate" flag a hurtful symbol will continue to praise a deified historical figure who despised them.
 
There is no "Democrat" party, and if we want to play that game, Reagan would have been bounced out of today's Repugnant party.

There is a Democrat party, there is no longer a democratic party.

OK, and he supported and signed the CRA and VRA. Can you name a POTUS that did more to advance civil rights for blacks other than Lincoln?

Kennedy is the one responsible for putting that together. The action of the Democrats after passing Kennedy's legislation has done nothing but destroy the black community in America.

You're usually better than this. LBJ, a democrat, was POTUS. The House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Obviously the southern democrats opposed it bitterly. So it defies logic and recorded history that democrats outside the South didn't support this bill - they went to the great lengths to get a very strong bill through the House committee chaired by a Democrat, then to bypass the Senate committee chaired by a racist white southern democrat (it was discharged to the floor without a committee vote, then to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

First your statement doesn't actually counter my point. The Republicans didn't want to endanger the bill by adding sections that were in opposition to standing SCOTUS rulings regarding states rights.

Second, we aren't talking about northerners, the subject at hand is Southern Democrats that others claimed fled the Democrat party to the Republicans after the CRA and VRA. That didn't happen, and the Southern Democrats were not conservative. Southern Democrats stayed with the Democrats because the Democrats were the progressive party and Southern Democrats were progressives.

Likewise, the argument that Blacks flooded to the Democrats after the CRA and VRA is disproved by the statistics. "Non-Whites" have voted dependably Democrat for as long as Gallup has been collecting election demographics.

It took broad support from virtually everyone not a white racist Southerner Democrat, but you can't help but deny giving any credit at all to Democrats, and throw in a gratuitous snipe at Johnson who enthusiastically supported the legislation at every step of the way.

Fixed that for you.

Your response is laughable because what you accuse me of doing is exactly what Democrats have been trying to Republicans for decades. I point out that the standard Democrat narrative of White Southern Racist Democrat fight to the Republican party is a lie, and that the vast majority of White Southern Racist Democrats remained White Southern Racist Democrats and you get upset? Get real.

Old habits die hard. In many (at least) areas of the South there wasn't even a functioning GOP. In my dad's county in W. Tennessee, the democratic primary usually was the election because no republican bothered to run. If a republican did run, it was pro forma - the democrat won in landslides. According to him, there wasn't a republican elected official in his entire county.

So the White Southern Racist Democrats remained White Southern Racist Democrats. That's my point.
 
There is a Democrat party, there is no longer a democratic party.

Well, actually no. But I like the term because it's an instant identifier of a blind partisan. Same signal using "Repugnant" sends to you.

Kennedy is the one responsible for putting that together. The action of the Democrats after passing Kennedy's legislation has done nothing but destroy the black community in America.

So you moved the goal posts to LBJs great society programs. Well, I'm waiting on the GOP to repeal Medicare and replace that with nothing. It creates dependence for the olds...
First your statement doesn't actually counter my point. The Republicans didn't want to endanger the bill by adding sections that were in opposition to standing SCOTUS rulings regarding states rights.

Can you point to anything to defend that, or is it just made up? And what you said was the CRA and VRA were supported by JFK, and republicans, but not the DNC, whatever that means. That's clearly wrong - those bills enjoyed across the board support outside Dixie.

Second, we aren't talking about northerners, the subject at hand is Southern Democrats that others claimed fled the Democrat party to the Republicans after the CRA and VRA. That didn't happen, and the Southern Democrats were not conservative. Southern Democrats stayed with the Democrats because the Democrats were the progressive party and Southern Democrats were progressives.

I've lived here and the Southern Democrats were conservative, on the right side of the Democratic party on most issues. Tennessee, like all other Southern states to my knowledge, were "right to work" states early on, almost all of them dating back to the 1940s, when democrats held the legislature and Governor's mansion.

But, sure, working class whites were more naturally aligned with the Democrats than the big business GOP in the North.

What you're doing is making broad statements about the parties when the reality is fairly complex. All you want to do is say, "Democrats bad, GOP good" and that's just not at all accurate. And it's offensive when right wingers attribute the racism of the southern democrats to the modern day party because if that's true, you're telling blacks they're too stupid to know this, and if they were smarter, they'd be GOPers.

Likewise, the argument that Blacks flooded to the Democrats after the CRA and VRA is disproved by the statistics. "Non-Whites" have voted dependably Democrat for as long as Gallup has been collecting election demographics.

It's a little tough because if you were black in the South, you probably weren't allowed to vote or hold office or serve on a jury because of Jim Crow laws, but those that did were mostly republicans. In the North, sure, lots of black democrats. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

Fixed that for you.

No need to fix anything - I've said it explicitly many times.

Your response is laughable because what you accuse me of doing is exactly what Democrats have been trying to Republicans for decades. I point out that the standard Democrat narrative of White Southern Racist Democrat fight to the Republican party is a lie, and that the vast majority of White Southern Racist Democrats remained White Southern Racist Democrats and you get upset? Get real.

I don't accuse the GOP of being racist, but it's just a fact that if you are a white racist in the South and vote for one of the two major parties, you're not voting for any democrat. The democrats broke bread with those people for a long time, and are glad to be rid of them. Now the racist dead enders are the GOP's problem.

So the White Southern Racist Democrats remained White Southern Racist Democrats. That's my point.

They aren't in 2015, and that is MY point. You can ignore Nixon's Southern Strategy all you want, but the shift of the white conservative vote from the Democratic to the republican party is complete as we speak.
 
I do not own or display a "Confederate" flag and have neither the desire nor intention to do so, even though I have non slave owning ancestors who fought for the South.

As a blacksmith, I have made countless odd & detailed Reproduction tools, artifacts & cannon parts for Civil War re-enactors whose fastidious attention to detail is impressive as eccentric as it may seem. To each his own

What I object to is the distorted notion that the "Civil War" aka "War between the States, aka "War of Northern Aggression" was fought primarily for "Freeing the Slaves".

I think that History will support me in that Lincoln despised African-Americans & that Abolition was simply a Propaganda initiative to seize the Moral High Ground. It was only a matter of time before slavery would have been phased out not just because of its cruelty & injustice but because of technological & economic reasons.

Even a cursory review of history & Colonialism establishes that an Industrialized State/Societies do not peacefully coexist beside agrarian States/Societies without making efforts to seize those resources.

While there were a multitude of factors involved, like most all wars, the "Civil War" was fought primarily for economic reasons / natural resources.

Except for the Civil War re-enactors I've met, the Confederate flag has, sadly, been hi-jacked ugly & racist hate groups. The "Professionally & Chronically Offended" in the "Offense Industry" will remain implacable & move on to another non-issue. Meanwhile, those who do find the "Confederate" flag a hurtful symbol will continue to praise a deified historical figure who despised them.

I guess it is true that the war wasn't fought to "Free the slave" but it was fought to preserve slavery. It's an important distinction, and admittedly one that is often misstated, but it was about slavery. You say it was mainly economic - true because the economics of the South, the wealthy in the south at least, depended on slavery, and there were $billions in 1860 dollars "invested" in slaves. So ending slavery was predictably devastating economically to the region.
 
I guess it is true that the war wasn't fought to "Free the slave" but it was fought to preserve slavery. It's an important distinction, and admittedly one that is often misstated, but it was about slavery. You say it was mainly economic - true because the economics of the South, the wealthy in the south at least, depended on slavery, and there were $billions in 1860 dollars "invested" in slaves. So ending slavery was predictably devastating economically to the region.




My point is that Emancipation and the well being of Black People was very low on the list of motives

Lincoln only "freed the slaves" in the States which had already seceded much earlier for many other reasons than slavery.

As far as Lincoln was concerned, the belated Emancipation served his military agenda, not humanitarian. Remember, the E.P. was 2 years into the War.

There is a new statue in Richmond VA of a smiling Lincoln reading to a group of small, Black children with one sitting in his lap. In reality, he would use the book to beat them away from him, burned his clothes & immediately taken a bath.

What I object to is the teaching of another historical distortion which falsely demonizes one side & fraudulently deifies another.

The following are a few realities that should be taught along with the obvious evils of slavery.

Years ago, I earned another University degree only this one was in History/English Education. I quit after 6 months because of the deceptions & lack of critical literacy we were instructed to instill in young students.

I understand that the sight of the “Confederate” flag is hurtful but the well being of Black people was low on Lincoln’s list of priorities.

For Example:
“5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation”
5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln, Slavery and Emancipation

- Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

- Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery. 
For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery.

- As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.

- the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union." CONTINUED


I think we basically agree, it's just that I feel that current misconceptions contribute to the rancor in the issue.

Thanks
 
Well, actually no. But I like the term because it's an instant identifier of a blind partisan. Same signal using "Repugnant" sends to you.

I've never heard that one before. I see "Tea Bagger" a lot. I used to be more reserved in my verbiage until I witnessed the response by liberals to the Tea Party. I realized the Democrat party won't stop with their derogatory word usage so I decided I should start taking a page out of their book.

So you moved the goal posts to LBJs great society programs. Well, I'm waiting on the GOP to repeal Medicare and replace that with nothing. It creates dependence for the olds...

Nope. I pointed out that crediting LBJ with Kennedy's legacy is wrong. LBJ's signature policies did nothing for Civil Rights, they just grew the government.

Can you point to anything to defend that, or is it just made up? And what you said was the CRA and VRA were supported by JFK, and republicans, but not the DNC, whatever that means. That's clearly wrong - those bills enjoyed across the board support outside Dixie.

The Republicans were operating on the 1883 Supreme Court ruling on a similar anti-discrimination bill passed by Congress in 1875 (read here in the "Some Background"). Based on the 1883 Court ruling Goldwater and others believed the wording of the "Public Accommodation" clause wouldn't survive a SCOTUS challenge. They were wrong, since the SCOTUS reversed the earlier court that same year, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid concern. The Republicans didn't want the 1964 Civil Rights law dying in the Supreme Court the way of the 1875 law did.

I've lived here and the Southern Democrats were conservative, on the right side of the Democratic party on most issues. Tennessee, like all other Southern states to my knowledge, were "right to work" states early on, almost all of them dating back to the 1940s, when democrats held the legislature and Governor's mansion.

They weren't conservative. Southern Democrats were big government entitlement progressives. I find it funny that you find a "right to work" to be Conservative. :roll:

But, sure, working class whites were more naturally aligned with the Democrats than the big business GOP in the North.

And non-Whites were "naturally aligned" with the Democrats too, apparently.

What you're doing is making broad statements about the parties when the reality is fairly complex. All you want to do is say, "Democrats bad, GOP good" and that's just not at all accurate. And it's offensive when right wingers attribute the racism of the southern democrats to the modern day party because if that's true, you're telling blacks they're too stupid to know this, and if they were smarter, they'd be GOPers.

Holy Irony, Batman! "Non-Whites" have voted Democrat since before the CRA, are you saying that non-Whites were too stupid to know this? I am sure that the appeal of big government nanny state programs had the same appeal in the 1940s, 50s and 60s for the poor as it always had.

Also, I couldn't care less if you are offended. I am objecting to the false and simplified narrative that Democrats have used for decades that said that racist white southerners flooded to the GOP after the CRA which statistics and all evidence shows didn't happen. I point out that the Southern Democrats didn't suddenly become Republicans, they stayed Democrats, and you get offended.

It's a little tough because if you were black in the South, you probably weren't allowed to vote or hold office or serve on a jury because of Jim Crow laws, but those that did were mostly republicans. In the North, sure, lots of black democrats. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

I like your "probably".

(pt 1)
 
(pt 2)

No need to fix anything - I've said it explicitly many times.

It was an appropriate fix. You keep trying to run from the fact that the racist Southern whites in the old south were Democrats, and not conservatives.

I don't accuse the GOP of being racist, but it's just a fact that if you are a white racist in the South and vote for one of the two major parties, you're not voting for any democrat.

No, that isn't a fact. That is an assumption born of your bigoted evaluation of people based entirely on their skin color and where they live.

The democrats broke bread with those people for a long time, and are glad to be rid of them. Now the racist dead enders are the GOP's problem.

First, are you sure you mean "break bread"? And second, no, Democrats have their share of racists whether you acknowledge them or not. The whole force behind the Democrats welfare state ideology is that minorities are unable to succeed without white Democrats.

They aren't in 2015, and that is MY point. You can ignore Nixon's Southern Strategy all you want, but the shift of the white conservative vote from the Democratic to the republican party is complete as we speak.

The supposed "Nixon Strategy" didn't work if it even existed. The South didn't turn red until Reagan. The Democrats remained racist, but changed their approach from Eugenics to abortion, with the same progressive eugenics supporters pushing abortion in the 1960s and 1070s.. The racism of the Democrat party never stopped, it just slightly changed its verbiage.
 
Back
Top Bottom