Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans
Doubt it - as you're no longer even addressing what is being posted. You just create run on sentences at will.
Which would be a reasonable argument if no other Democrats voted against it and they hadn't traditionally opposed civil rights. Further, Northern Democrats didn't find Southern Democrats' opposition to civil rights important enough to break away and form their own party. The argument is bankrupt.
What an
irrelevant argument to make. That the overwhelming majority doesn't suit your standards for the voting to be based on geographic lines is
your problem. As for the second ridiculous point, it was the Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948. Lol. Where did you think Dixiecrats came from?
The facts are not what you say they are, that simple. This article's assumptions are historically simplistic and lacking in rational analysis.
Again ignoring the northern support of Southern Democrats.
Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're
really trying hard to fight the facts.
The lack of moral courage to force the party away from racist policies or break away and form their own party. Also ignoring the historical support of NORTHERN Democrats of racist policies.
Already addressed, however:
Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, whether you
think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the discussion. Ignoring the support of what? Northern Democrats of racist policies? See, there you go with the weird sentences and no facts. The facts don't lie mac, overwhelmingly in 3 different CRA votes, Democrats came out in large droves. 3 times, more than 50% voted in favor of CRAs. 3 times, those votes were divided along geographic lines. 3 times, the Democrats who voted against it were
Southerners for the most part. Alabama(D), Arkansas (D), Mississippi(D), Georgia (D), South Carolina(D), Virginia (D), South Carolina (D) - against....... in contrast...Rhode Island (R), NJ (R), NY (R), Vermont (R)... in favor... hmmm odd, those look amazingly familiar... I wonder why?
Yes, all of them. Not cherry picked facts taken out of context.
So there we go with "all the racists moved over to the Republican party". You're ignoring the length of voter progression between parties and assuming any switch in allegiance is solely due to civil rights issues. Both of which are entirely simplistic and irrational, not to mention inaccurate. You're also ignoring the Jeffersonian ideal of "they can't integrate or succeed in white society, so we must help them" that has taken over the Democrat party.
You're refusing to answer a questions. I wonder why. Once Democrats changed their stance on segregation (and they did), what happened to voters who were pro-segregation? Did they migrate North? Did they stay put for the most part? Did they disappear? C'man mac, I want to hear you bull**** your way out of this. What happened to these people after 1964? What happened to the high schoolers who were pro-segregation? What happened to the 20 year olds who'd be in the 70s by now? Did they simply stop existing? They didn't raise kids or pass down their values? Again, I'm trying to see why you find the statement so flawed when you've literally spent the last 4 pages ducking and dodging questions.