- Boards
- Politics
- Can someone explain why "democrats were confederates" is still a thing
AngelsNAirwav3s posted...The dixiecrats pushed for segregation
Yeah, f*** those southern farmersI don't know what fact surprised me most: That the man had shot my cat, that I cared for that cat, or that I had a cat.Gradieus posted...Russian Rocket posted...
RcBcoop80 posted...
Democrats were the party of slavery. Surprised so many uneducated people are gathered in one spot.
Yes, they sure WERE (past tense). Which side is defending the confederates NOW (present tense)?
Confederates don't exist anymore.
Um, no s***? I ask again.....are you being intentionally stupid or is this the real you?Carmelo posted...RcBcoop80 posted...
Democrats were the party of slavery. Surprised so many uneducated people are gathered in one spot.
and the democrat voting bloc became the republican one and vice versa
I wonder do some people even think? do they wonder about why black people universally vote democrat? wouldn't make sense if they were still the party of slavery now would it?
You're so far out of your depth it's not even funny. I suggest you do real research on this topic to understand why dems are the party of slavery.(edited 4 days ago)RcBcoop80 posted...Carmelo posted...
RcBcoop80 posted...
Democrats were the party of slavery. Surprised so many uneducated people are gathered in one spot.
and the democrat voting bloc became the republican one and vice versa
I wonder do some people even think? do they wonder about why black people universally vote democrat? wouldn't make sense if they were still the party of slavery now would it?
You're so far out of your depth it's not even funny. I suggest you do real research on this topic to understand why dems are the party of slavery.
The Civil Rights Act mayhaps?Over the mountain.Let's flip it to the Republicans who love to call on the name of Lincoln but don't seem to understand party realignment. In the immortal words of Dot-Com from 30 Rock "Actually, today's Republican party would be unrecognizable to Lincoln. He fought a war to preserve federal authority over the states, that's not exactly small government."-PSN: Xtopher85
"Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153Carmelo posted...Just yesterday on Fox an argument to the effect of "DEMOCRATS were the party of slavery! Checkmate liberals!" was made. And I've seen it countless times on twitter
Basically why the f*** are so many republicans totally ignorant of political realignment? These are supposedly educated (lol) people too who apparently know stuff about history but not that. I literally learned this in high school! Is it the kind of thing where they only taught it in the northern states but not the south? It's such a simplistic and easily refuted argument that I can't believe people are still making it but here we are
It's a problem on the American right.
It doesn't really exist in Canadian discourse and makes about as much sense as arguing that the Conservative Party of Canada will tear up NAFTA because "The Conservatives are the party of the Empire and the National Policy while the Liberals are the party of continentalism and reciprocity."Bustin' Justin makes us feel good!It's technically true but completely meaningless given historical context.Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids.lilORANG posted...It's technically true but completely meaningless given historical context.
which is apparently waaaay too much for people to grasp
"the democrats were the party of slavery and small government in 1860"
"yeah but they would be the exact opposite today"
"how? their name is the DEMOCRATS! and the democrats were the party of slavery and small government in 1860!"
it's like a blatant refusal to use deductive reasoningYou can take a class on the history of U.S. politics in college and learn it there. Only problem is a lot of Republicans think colleges are lying. Which I then wonder where they get their information from. Consider the source.I post on Yahoo.Carmelo posted...lilORANG posted...
It's technically true but completely meaningless given historical context.
which is apparently waaaay too much for people to grasp
"the democrats were the party of slavery and small government in 1860"
"yeah but they would be the exact opposite today"
"how? their name is the DEMOCRATS! and the democrats were the party of slavery and small government in 1860!"
it's like a blatant refusal to use deductive reasoning
yet if you go on about the crusades to point out christians can be bad too you get people going on and on about how that was so long ago, doesnt matter now.What I find most interesting about the argument is that they're using it to try to disparage democrats...while at the same time defending racism. Pick a side guys. Either racism is bad and the party that supported it was bad, or racism is good and the party that supported it was good.
Even if it were true that democrats were the racists...that doesn't matter anymore. What matters is who the racists are now.It's like punching a round bottom dummy. We all know it's futile, but occasionally it's fun.
- willythemailboy on the subject of stray orcasGradieus posted...Lord_of_BeefDip posted...
Gradieus posted...
Because there's no such thing as political realignment.
That's just how democrats try to bury their own heinous past.
Except there was. After the civil rights act most of the solid south started voting GOP. In 1968 Wallace won most of them on his pro-segregationist platform, and after that most southern states who preciously voted Democratic felt the party moves to far left (And had allied with blacks.) and started voting Republican by similar margins as they used to vote Dem. It really is no coincidence that states that voted Dem by large margins in 1960 were voting decisively Republican by 1972 on.
At the same time the liberal wing in the GOP was shrinking, with many urban inner city Republicans who were moderate to liberal jumping ship. Black people also used to favor the GOP (Or were at least a large presence. ), yet as its conservative wing grew, with racist southern Dems joining and altering the party strategy, combined with the Civil Rights act, all that together led to an exodus of black and minority voters from the Republican party to the Democratic party.
Jimmy Carter won the south in 1976 so your proposition of 1968 and 1972 hold no basis. What's more likely is that there hasn't been a good Democratic candidate since Carter that focuses on issues relevant to the South like immigration, pro-life, and gun control.
Carter won the south because not even Southerners could forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon."Shut your filthy whore mouth."- AB
"But if I shut my filthy whore mouth, I can't use it to be a filthy whore. Does not compute." - TashaMKRussian Rocket posted...Gradieus posted...
Russian Rocket posted...
RcBcoop80 posted...
Democrats were the party of slavery. Surprised so many uneducated people are gathered in one spot.
Yes, they sure WERE (past tense). Which side is defending the confederates NOW (present tense)?
Confederates don't exist anymore.
Um, no s***? I ask again.....are you being intentionally stupid or is this the real you?
No one is defending confederates.Funny thing is that most republicans view confederate statues as a southern pride thing while most democrats see them as racist symbols, according to yougov polls.
The confederacy killed a s*** ton of republican bannermen and was a democrat army.
Robert e lee must be turning over in his grave as democrat in name only people try to tear him down on behalf of Republicans like abe lincolnTrump's closest adviser hired multiple white supremacists to write for Breitbart News. Evidence: http://www.breitbarttruth.comWillful illiteracy and/or desperation to deflect from their embracing of the remnants of (what ought to be) abandoned ideologies from the 19th and 20th centuries.Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!(edited 4 days ago)Charliesix posted...Funny thing is that most republicans view confederate statues as a southern pride thing while most democrats see them as racist symbols, according to yougov polls.
The confederacy killed a s*** ton of republican bannermen and was a democrat army.
Robert e lee must be turning over in his grave as democrat in name only people try to tear him down on behalf of Republicans like abe lincoln
yet another point of cognitive dissonance
they claim the confederate symbol as southern pride and at the same time disparage the former party of the south
like, choose one. Either you embrace confederate history and admit you're embracing democrats of an old era or admonish those democrats and also admonish the confederate heritageThePieReborn posted...Willful illiteracy and/or desperation to deflect from their embracing of the remnants of (what ought to be) abandoned ideologies from the 19th and 20th centuries.
Communism?Classically liberal, independent moderate. US Marine and Pianist.
[Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/AlesandrosX?feature=mhee]Probably because the democrats were confederatesAre we referencing communism as described by Marx (an idyllic dream in the best of circumstances) or the paranoid lunacy wrangled together by the standard 20th century despots?
To both, I would say they ought to be abandoned. I don't see the Democrats jumping to embrace either of these things, however.Party leader, passive-aggressive doormat, pasta eater extraordinaire!(edited 4 days ago)thrashmetal14 posted...Probably because the democrats were confederates
This makes no sense, unless you ignored his post and just read the topic title. f***ing Christ.the more I read this topic the more I'm convinced that people simply are unable to engage with a level of thinking more complicated than "R good, D bad!"
democrats were the party of slavery? makes sense, D bad! But democrats then would be republicans today? Impossible, because R good! We had Lincoln! Lincoln wanted big government? Must have been good, because R good! But big government is bad today because democrats want it and D bad!Gradieus posted...Carmelo posted...
@Gradieus
explain then:
why are the southern former confederate states primarily red today?
why is it the republican party who wants to defend confederate monuments today?
why is the republican party the party of states rights today?
1. Because no Democratic candidate focuses on immigration, pro-life and 2nd amendment. Carter won the south in 1976 so any notion about 1968 and 1972 flipping things is moot. You just need a better candidate.
2. Because monuments are history and my history is your history. Advocating for the removal of George Washington statues and blowing up My. Rushmore is pathetic and goes against everything Americans stand for. Removing George Washington says a lot more about the Left than the Right.
3. Because the government has gotten out of control. Only big cities succeed from big government. There's no real big cities in much of the South, which are liberal leaning anyway, so they suffer the most.
Well I have to give you credit for having at least one true statement in your post. Carter did in fact win the South in 1976. A single true statement is an improvement for you, but everything else you said is a lie.
Nobody is "advocating for the removal of George Washington statues and blowing up My. Rushmore", and the reason Republicans are defending Confederate statues (largely erected on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, or as symbols of defiance of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s) is because they approve of the white supremacist ideology of the Confederacy.
And claiming there aren't any big cities in the South is flat-out insane. Apparently you think that Houston, the 4th largest city in America with a population of 2.1 million and a metro area of 6 million. Also apparently not existing: such large cities as Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, Baltimore, San Antonio, Nashville, Jacksonville, Memphis, Richmond, New Orleans, Raleigh, and Birmingham, all of which have metro areas of over 1 million.A bad enough dude to save the President.
"We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida) on the Bush administrationmystic belmont posted...Yes, the Democrat party was the party of the KKK,
There's more to it than this, back then ideology was based a lot on the region someone came from. Democrats in Northern states were still progressive. Southern Republicans weren't very prevalent, but they were just as racist as their Democratic counterparts.It will rain soon. Blood will fall like rain...-Karel
Member of The Phoenix ForceCarmelo posted...the more I read this topic the more I'm convinced that people simply are unable to engage with a level of thinking more complicated than "R good, D bad!"
democrats were the party of slavery? makes sense, D bad! But democrats then would be republicans today? Impossible, because R good! We had Lincoln! Lincoln wanted big government? Must have been good, because R good! But big government is bad today because democrats want it and D bad!
I don't know any Republican that wants to bring back slavery, so your entire premise is proven to be stupid yet again.Red XlV posted...Well I have to give you credit for having at least one true statement in your post. Carter did in fact win the South in 1976. A single true statement is an improvement for you, but everything else you said is a lie.
Nobody is "advocating for the removal of George Washington statues and blowing up My. Rushmore", and the reason Republicans are defending Confederate statues (largely erected on behalf of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, or as symbols of defiance of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s) is because they approve of the white supremacist ideology of the Confederacy.
And claiming there aren't any big cities in the South is flat-out insane. Apparently you think that Houston, the 4th largest city in America with a population of 2.1 million and a metro area of 6 million. Also apparently not existing: such large cities as Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, Baltimore, San Antonio, Nashville, Jacksonville, Memphis, Richmond, New Orleans, Raleigh, and Birmingham, all of which have metro areas of over 1 million.
https://cdn.newsbusters.org/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/lets_blow_up_mount_rushmore.png
They don't want to remove them because they're part of history. Lincoln forgave them, why can't you?
I said they're left leaning cities and they are. Just look at the results in Texas.
Hey look at that, everything I said was true! Go me!Gradieus posted...Carmelo posted...
the more I read this topic the more I'm convinced that people simply are unable to engage with a level of thinking more complicated than "R good, D bad!"
democrats were the party of slavery? makes sense, D bad! But democrats then would be republicans today? Impossible, because R good! We had Lincoln! Lincoln wanted big government? Must have been good, because R good! But big government is bad today because democrats want it and D bad!
I don't know any Republican that wants to bring back slavery, so your entire premise is proven to be stupid yet again.
but I know plenty who want to curtail the size of government and have states rights be supreme
which was exactly what the democrats in the 1860s wanted
checkmate @GradieusCarmelo posted...Gradieus posted...
Carmelo posted...
the more I read this topic the more I'm convinced that people simply are unable to engage with a level of thinking more complicated than "R good, D bad!"
democrats were the party of slavery? makes sense, D bad! But democrats then would be republicans today? Impossible, because R good! We had Lincoln! Lincoln wanted big government? Must have been good, because R good! But big government is bad today because democrats want it and D bad!
I don't know any Republican that wants to bring back slavery, so your entire premise is proven to be stupid yet again.
but I know plenty who want to curtail the size of government and have states rights be supreme
which was exactly what the democrats in the 1860s wanted
checkmate Gradieus
If you vote based off a single position that's your own prerogative.Russian Rocket posted...thrashmetal14 posted...
Probably because the democrats were confederates
This makes no sense, unless you ignored his post and just read the topic title. f***ing Christ.
The Democrats at the time were Confederates. Makes sense to me.thrashmetal14 posted...Russian Rocket posted...
thrashmetal14 posted...
Probably because the democrats were confederates
This makes no sense, unless you ignored his post and just read the topic title. f***ing Christ.
The Democrats at the time were Confederates. Makes sense to me.
And the democrats of now wouldn't be. Pretending that today's democrats are hypocrites for being against confederate monuments requires you to pretend that both parties ideologically never moved from the 19th century.Still love that Muslim Americans can't build a community center using private dollars on private property because that is a symbol that the foreign terrorists won! The ashes of a Burlington coat factory is sacred! 9/11! Never forget!
...but taxpayer dollars going towards statues and sites honoring terrorists who wanted to preserve slavery indefinitely are A-OK to the far right.(edited 3 days ago)thrashmetal14 posted...Russian Rocket posted...
thrashmetal14 posted...
Probably because the democrats were confederates
This makes no sense, unless you ignored his post and just read the topic title. f***ing Christ.
The Democrats at the time were Confederates. Makes sense to me.
Well, no. The confederacy was based on the idea of anti-partyism. But still, you're missing the point.Gradieus posted...Because there's no such thing as political realignment.
That's just how republicans try to bury their own heinous past.Unknown280 posted...Gradieus posted...
Because there's no such thing as political realignment.
That's just how republicans try to bury their own heinous past.
New user figuring out the quote button and then changing what the quote originally said?
How original.Saw a hilarious Twitter post during the whole Charlottesville thing:
"The current armed wing of the Democratic party is meeting the former armed wing of the Democratic party."'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'Unknown280 posted...Gradieus posted...
Because there's no such thing as political realignment.
That's just how republicans try to bury their own heinous past.
it's really crazy how republicans claim to the party of lincoln thing with an iron fist and totally ignore the stuff he did was the most big government s*** in our historyzhukov1943 posted...Saw a hilarious Twitter post during the whole Charlottesville thing:
"The current armed wing of the Democratic party is meeting the former armed wing of the Democratic party."
Hilarious because of how willfully ignorant it is? Ohhhhh hahaha yeah I get jokes.-PSN: Xtopher85
"Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153My Uncle tried to pull the Republicans freed the slaves, etc BS on FB the other day. Had to explain the Civil Rights movement and Nixion's Southern Strategy where the Parties switched. The GOP became Conservative and The Dems became liberal.X-Box One Gamertag: KrankDaddy - Currently playing: Mass Effect, WWE 2K17, GTA Online
https://www.twitch.tv/krankdaddy & https://beam.pro/KrankDaddyJoCrazy posted...My Uncle tried to pull the Republicans freed the slaves, etc BS on FB the other day. Had to explain the Civil Rights movement and Nixion's Southern Strategy where the Parties switched. The GOP became Conservative and The Dems became liberal.
did he listen?I don't see why it's wrong. Yes, there was a re-alignment as political parties are not static. But from a historical perspective the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow during that time, that's not an inaccurate thing to say. Nowadays it's unrecognizable from what it was in the 1800s and early 1900s but as I said, that's part of the party's history.Xtopher85 posted...zhukov1943 posted...
Saw a hilarious Twitter post during the whole Charlottesville thing:
"The current armed wing of the Democratic party is meeting the former armed wing of the Democratic party."
Hilarious because of how willfully ignorant it is? Ohhhhh hahaha yeah I get jokes.
You know, rather than deflecting and hiding from your history you should own it.'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'Super_Guido posted...I don't see why it's wrong. Yes, there was a re-alignment as political parties are not static. But from a historical perspective the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow during that time, that's not an inaccurate thing to say. Nowadays it's unrecognizable from what it was in the 1800s and early 1900s but as I said, that's part of the party's history.
Because it's irrelevant and they always do it without sufficient context.PSN: TheUndying84Because most people have never once studied American history, or if they did they were too f***ing stupid to understand what happened in the 60's.The internet, where people come to be a dumbass.Never happened, TC.
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/60084447#14
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/60084447#45
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/74590672#17
"Actually, today's Republican party would be unrecognizable to Lincoln. He fought a war to preserve-
There's your key word. Lincoln's fight was a conservative one, as laid down by his definition of conservatism at Cooper Union. The preservation of our constitution and the rule of law, vs people who wanted to secede and ignore elections if they didn't get their way.
"But state's rights!" Many northern states ignored and would have been perfectly fine with nullifying fugitive slave codes, which were a federal imposition. The Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with the constitution and was like the Roe or Obergefell of its era, it was just an activist Democrat judge on his soapbox demanding that he get what he personally wanted. One must also wonder how much Democrats cared about state or individual rights, when they were the ones who crossed over with slave catchers and violent mobs to burn down abolitionist presses. Anti-speech and anti-freedom party, some things never change.Hero/Legend of 261. Lover of life,free speech,etc. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1196-
The man who cared too much. Providing trickle-down knowledge since 2009(edited 3 days ago)Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.Tha anti-myth rhythm rock shocker...BlazBBQ posted...Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.
Literally no one is saying this. How surprised am I that someone with the number of brain cells you have missed the point. And under the Confederacy, there were no parties. They were anti-partyism.Russian Rocket posted...BlazBBQ posted...
Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.
Literally no one is saying this. How surprised am I that someone with the number of brain cells you have missed the point. And under the Confederacy, there were no parties. They were anti-partyism.
He is a former member of the US Senate (D).Tha anti-myth rhythm rock shocker...I think I get it, some people literally think democrats are trying to remove confederate monuments because we're trying to hide the fact that the democratic party was the party of slavery, in some kind of self serving attempt to wipe out history.
The idea that maybe we don't care which party was the party of slavery in 1860, and would want to remove the monuments even if they were republican ones, because it's about slavery being bad, not partisan cowardice, never crosses these people's minds apparently(edited 3 days ago)BlazBBQ posted...Russian Rocket posted...
BlazBBQ posted...
Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.
Literally no one is saying this. How surprised am I that someone with the number of brain cells you have missed the point. And under the Confederacy, there were no parties. They were anti-partyism.
He is a former member of the US Senate (D).
great. Now did your brain cells completely stop working when you got to the letter "D?" What relevance does this have to the parties today? Parties which completely flipped in ideology?BlazBBQ posted...Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.
It's revisionist history tactic.
Can't forget FDR Executive Order 9066, that one took four Presidents three being Republicans to clean up that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066Avatars are frauds and bullies. The universe is a hologram. Buy gold, buy.- Boards
- Politics
- Can someone explain why "democrats were confederates" is still a thing
lies, misinformation, f news from F Newsif I'm always right I learn nothing, if I'm wrong twice I learn 2 things"Democrats were the party of slavery!"
"So why don't you support them?"Obama 2008how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die.BlazBBQ posted...Russian Rocket posted...
BlazBBQ posted...
Jefferson Davis, who served as president of the confederacy, was a Democrat as well.
If anyone is trying to claim that Democrats weren't the party of slavery and Jim Crowe, they are trying to rewrite history. Even Google is so ashamed of this history (we know their allegiances) that they removed Jefferson Davis' affiliation with the Democratic Party from the search results, even though he is correctly listed as such on Wikipedia. History is there so we can learn from it, and why we must cherish and protect the freedoms our country has fought for.
Literally no one is saying this. How surprised am I that someone with the number of brain cells you have missed the point. And under the Confederacy, there were no parties. They were anti-partyism.
He is a former member of the US Senate (D).
And your point?Carmelo posted...I think I get it, some people literally think democrats are trying to remove confederate monuments because we're trying to hide the fact that the democratic party was the party of slavery, in some kind of self serving attempt to wipe out history.
The idea that maybe we don't care which party was the party of slavery in 1860, and would want to remove the monuments even if they were republican ones, because it's about slavery being bad, not partisan cowardice, never crosses these people's minds apparently
It's because they are the Party of Projection.
"Well, that's what WE would do, and we play super hardcore identity politics... so of course that's obviously what the democrats are trying to do! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm on the Texas board to approve what goes into textbooks and I need to make our history seem more pleasant than it was, so those evil history revisionist democrats can't do it!"Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.Calintares posted...how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Same thing could be asked why people speaking angrily against racism and slavery of the past are siding with the Democratic party that perpetrated those very things.Avatars are frauds and bullies. The universe is a hologram. Buy gold, buy.NeotheLight posted...Calintares posted...
how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Same thing could be asked why people speaking angrily against racism and slavery of the past are siding with the Democratic party that perpetrated those very things.
This can't be a real post constructed using logic. Simply impossible.NeotheLight posted...Calintares posted...
how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Same thing could be asked why people speaking angrily against racism and slavery of the past are siding with the Democratic party that perpetrated those very things.
they perpetuated those things in the past. they do the opposite now. literal 0.5 seconds of thought could have led you to this answerNeotheLight posted...Calintares posted...
how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Same thing could be asked why people speaking angrily against racism and slavery of the past are siding with the Democratic party that perpetrated those very things.
Since we're on a video game site, allow me to draw a video game analogy. The games Prey (2006) and Prey (2017) are about different things. Amazing how two items bearing the same name can be so different!-PSN: Xtopher85
"Being alive is pretty much a constant stream of embarassment." - Pod 153If anyone says that the Democrats were the party of slavery (and that Republicans love America), just show them this. Trump voters would support Democrat and traitor Jefferson over the first black president. Who supports slavery now motherf***ers?
https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/900435456491364352"Our party is currently full of racists, but Democrats are the REAL racists, because their party was full of racists 150 years ago."
"Also, the confederates weren't racist."(edited 2 days ago)Gradieus posted...Because there's no such thing as political realignment.
That's just how democrats try to bury their own heinous past.The ancient Oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing- Socratescognitive dissonanceCalintares posted...how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Strom thurmond was the only one who switched the rest of the racist democrats just lost their seats over time. The democrats were the ones voting against 1964 civil rights and 1965 votings rights.
(edited 2 days ago)tl0_olt posted...Calintares posted...
how does these "the realignment never happened"-people explain Strom Thurmond and his ilk of racist southern Democrats changing party allegiance in the 60s?
Strom thurmond was the only one who switched the rest of the racist democrats just lost their seats over time. The democrats were the ones voting against 1964 civil rights and 1965 votings rights.
Literally PragerU.
And again, Democrats were the ones who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.A bad enough dude to save the President.
"We chose more government instead of more freedom." - Marco Rubio (R-Florida) on the Bush administration(edited 2 hours ago)Most Germans were Nazis in 1939. Therefore most Germans must be Nazis in 2017. Logic.
But maybe the majority of KKK members secretly voted for Obama twice, who knows.600k
Chronicling and keeping catalog of discussions, records, postings, and handles all pertaining to the subject of the LGBT community and other transgressions as it relates to society, internet and entertainment.
Search This Blog
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Can someone explain why "democrats were confederates" is still a thing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment