Every single top 10 state in life expectancy is a blue state ... (Obama, speech)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already went through this with somebody else in this thread.
The notion that all individual politicians had to "switch parties" in order for this thesis to be true is ridiculous. In case you didn't know, there are these things called "elections," and for a large-scale party switching to take place, the only thing that needs to happen is for people to start voting for candidates in the other party. Duh.
There is no evidence there was a switch. There is evidence that popular support for racist policy went away. The people who say there was a switch are partisan liberal Democrats who have two motives to make that claim...to sweep away your party's history on race while smearing your political opposition.
There is no doubt some white racists today vote Republican but it isn't because the GOP offers racist policies. Racists have viewpoints on issues that have nothing to do with race, and if there is no party offering white racist policy, no party is going to be able to own the white racist vote.
You just accused me and others of being racist despite no evidence of that. You act like you can read the minds of people. I just gave numerous non racist reasons to oppose illegal immigration and you cry raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist again.
Far left peole like you cannot discuss politics without accusing people of racism without evidence. You are childish. You are Jussie Smollet pulling a race hoax.
We know leftwingers like you would want a Republican to go to jail for not paying taxes but you have no problem with illegal immigrants not paying taxes.
I don't know enough about you, personally, to be able to accuse you of any kind of racism or not.
I was talking about the historical fact that lots of Southern democrats were conservative racists, who gravitated to the republican party (and are still conservative racists, maybe they aren't quite as racist as they used to be, but they're still racist).
And when I say, "Southern democrats" I do not particularly mean individual politicians, I'm referring to the broad movement of tens of millions of voters over the course of 3-5 decades.
It's funny you're accusing me of accusing others of racism, because I can't tell you how many times the conservatives on this forum have accused the liberals here of being racist.
I don't know enough about you, personally, to be able to accuse you of any kind of racism or not.
I was talking about the historical fact that lots of Southern democrats were conservative racists, who gravitated to the republican party (and are still conservative racists, maybe they aren't quite as racist as they used to be, but they're still racist).
And when I say, "Southern democrats" I do not particularly mean individual politicians, I'm referring to the broad movement of tens of millions of voters over the course of 3-5 decades.
It's funny you're accusing me of accusing others of racism, because I can't tell you how many times the conservatives on this forum have accused the liberals here of being racist.
the white racists were mostly fiscal liberals. You choose to call them conservatives b/c your partisan liberal definition of racist is conservative.
People who voted for Democrats like FDR were not conservatives. That makes no sense. He was the father of big government.
You just said that I and others are racist if we oppose illegal immigration but then act like you didn't accuse people of racism.
My brother had a Hispanic guy doing his lawncare when he lived in Richmond.
He told my brother that he left Austin because illegals in Austin were charging much less for lawncare and making it difficult for him to get work or work at rates that profitable.
But using your liberal logic, this Hispanic is a raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist.
The most passionate anti-illegal immigration person that I've met is a black person. You no doubt consider him a raaaaaaaaaaaaaacist.
It makes me laugh when liberals act like they don't understand the labor arguments and the safety arguments against illegal immigration. You know it is not racist.
I'm against legal immigration too b/c I think this country already has too many people and I don't see how it helps poor and unemployed Americans to keep importing more people even in a legal way.
If you really care about lifting up poor people in this country of all races , one of the easist things you can do is oppose illegal immigration.
I never said no Democrat switched to the GOP. They didn't switch because the GOP adopted white racist policy, which is your assertion.
No, I have repeatedly said that Southern democrats switched parties because the (national) democrats become too liberal. As they switched, they brought their racism along with them.
Quote:
You really think i'm going to read your Daily Kos leftwing stuff. I'm not here to do your leftwing homework assignments.
Did you even attempt to click on my link? No, it's clear you did not. It was a link to a Google search!
Quote:
As the south became more educated and affluent and tolerant, it shifted to the GOP. That is an undeniable fact.
No, as the national democratic party became more liberal, conservative Southern democrats switched to the GOP.
If your statement was true, we would see the urban counties in the South being more republicans than the rural ones. But in fact it's mostly the opposite (except in the black majority rural counties). This indicates that the more affluent and educated Southerners (who tend to cluster in the urban areas) tend more towards democrats, while it is the lesser educated and poorer rural areas that go more strongly toward the GOP.
You obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about.
How many times do I have to repeat that they did NOT support the Great Society? The Great Society (particularly the Civil Rights Act), was one of the things that started spurring them to leave the democratic party in large numbers.
Let me repeat, so that I don't have to say it again: Southerners did NOT support the Great Society. The Great Society (particularly the Civil Rights Act), was one of the things that started spurring them to leave the democratic party in large numbers.
Got it?
What I 'got' is that you're still not taking my advice to crack open a history book before you spew.
Obviously, the Southern Segregationist Democrats did not support CRA 64. I figured that would be taken as a given, especially since Robert Byrd led a massive filibuster against it.
According to the above, Southern Senate Dems split 11-11 in that vote, and Southern House Dems voted for it by a strong 60-40. (see tables 1 and 2).
Quote:
The New Deal was different because it was almost entirely economic measures.
Wrong. LBJ said to top aide Bill Moyers, soon after taking over for JFK, "I really intend to finish Franklin Roosevelt's revolution." (see LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, p. 561)
Quote:
1. George Wallace. A conservative policy he supported was, well, segregation.
2. Strom Thurmond. A conservative policy he supported was, well, segregation. Not to mention a dozen others (anti-abortion, etc).
3. Jesse Helms. I hope I don't have to mention how many conservative policies he supported.
The latter two started out as democrats and later switched to the republican party. Wallace started out as a democrat, and while he never officially left the democrats, unofficially he began disassociating himself with the party, as exemplified by his independent run for president in 1968.
There, that's not just two, but three well-known examples. It wasn't even hard coming up with them.
First of all, segregation was not a conservative policy. Your major malfunction is that you don't have a fixed definition of 'conservative.' One day you think that Islamist Somali ward lords are 'conservative.' Most Conservative Countries 2019
The next day you think segregation is conservative. Presumably the day after that you return to the normal definition of 'conservative' in American political parlance, namely advocacy of limited government, a la Reagan or a Ted Cruz.
If we can't define the words we use, we literally don't know what we're talking about.
Lastly George Wallace was not a conservative by any stretch of imagination. He is usually labeled as a 'populist' (whatever that means), but definitely not a conservative. In fact, far-left George McGovern made sure to give Wallace a nice shout-out in his 1972 nomination acceptance speech: https://www.c-span.org/video/?3437-1...peech&start=44
Go read a history book. You're setting records for 'number of errors per post.'
First of all, segregation was not a conservative policy.
Yes, it was.
Quote:
Your major malfunction is that you don't have a fixed definition of 'conservative.' One day you think that Islamist Somali ward lords are 'conservative.' Most Conservative Countries 2019
The next day you think segregation is conservative. Presumably the day after that you return to the normal definition of 'conservative' in American political parlance, namely advocacy of limited government, a la Reagan or a Ted Cruz.
If we can't define the words we use, we literally don't know what we're talking about.
: disposition in politics to preserve what is established
: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
-- Segregationists wanted to preserve the cultural/institutional status quo of Southern segregation, a practice which went back to the Civil War (and prior to the Civil War, existed in an even stronger form in the institution of slavery). Eliminating segregation would eliminate this hundreds-years-old arrangement. This is why segregation was a conservative policy, and those wanting to preserve segregation were conservatives: They were seeking to preserve a hundreds-year-old societal arrangement.
-- The Somali Islamists are actually not much different. Islamic society in the Middle East for centuries had consisted of state governments run by theocracies, at least until modern times. Those promoting Islamic theocracies in the Middle East, thus, are also conservatives, because they want to return to an ancient form of government.
-- As for the limited government thing, that, too, is a conservative issue (in a US context, of course) because conservatives feel that limited government was how the US started out. Thus, the Reagan or Ted Cruz flavors of conservatism were also, well, conservative. It is a desire to preserve (or return to) a form of government from times in the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was a link to a Google search! 
