Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?

[gfm7175]

It is just a matter of history that the racist Democrats became Dixiecrats, and later Republicans. That is not to say all Republicans are racists, but they are certainly a large group of Republicans.

LIE. See my post #3... The parties never switched.

 

[Walt]

LIE.

You can whine about it all you want, but clearly racists switched first from Democrats to the Dixiecrats, and then from the Dixiecrats to the Republicans. Lets look at one person in particular.

Strom Thurmond saw Truman's support for Black civil rights, and in particular the civil right to join the military (would that be a martial right or a civil right?). He formed the Dixiecrats to oppose the Democrats who were no longer willing to support racism, and ran for President in 1948. When dividing the vote did not work, he joined the Republicans, and lived out his life as a Republican.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Right wing flunkies and sycophants have been in denial of such historical facts for years.....just mention "Southern Strategy" and they lose it. Denial, supposition and conjecture are their watch words.

Nope. Demonkkkrats are in denial of their own history. See my post #3 in this thread.

BFD! A mish mosh of selected facts excerpted from history deluged with your personal revisionism, supposition and conjecture. STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACTS OF THE FOLLOWING:

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/



What we get wrong about the Southern strategy
It took much longer — and went much further — than we think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/what-we-get-wrong-about-southern-strategy/





How the Republican Majority Emerged
Fifty years after the Republican Party hit upon a winning formula, President Trump is putting it at risk.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/emerging-republican-majority/595504/



Thanks for proving my point, tweety. carry on.

 

[gfm7175]

BFD! A mish mosh of selected facts excerpted from history deluged with your personal revisionism, supposition and conjecture. STILL DOESN'T CHANGE THE HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACTS OF THE FOLLOWING:

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/



What we get wrong about the Southern strategy
It took much longer — and went much further — than we think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/what-we-get-wrong-about-southern-strategy/





How the Republican Majority Emerged
Fifty years after the Republican Party hit upon a winning formula, President Trump is putting it at risk.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/emerging-republican-majority/595504/



Thanks for proving my point, tweety. carry on.

Holy links dismissed on sight. No valid argumentation presented.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Holy links dismissed on sight. No valid argumentation presented.

translation: proud willful ignorance displayed by this right wing wonk birdy....HE DIDN'T READ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE LINKS. Not unlike myself, who read all he put forth....the reason why I could dismantle it so easily.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...arties-switch-platforms&p=4364044#post4364044

This is why I periodically put these right wing flunkies on IA, folks. You can't have a rational debate with a right wing troll who believes their opinions are on par with facts, or who just ignore and deny what they don't like.

Yep, Gfm71715's icon is most suitable....a little bird that is all noise and full of shyte. He's done.

 

[gfm7175]

translation: proud willful ignorance displayed by this right wing wonk birdy....HE DIDN'T READ THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE LINKS. Not unlike myself, who read all he put forth....the reason why I could dismantle it so easily.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...arties-switch-platforms&p=4364044#post4364044

This is why I periodically put these right wing flunkies on IA, folks. You can't have a rational debate with a right wing troll who believes their opinions are on par with facts, or who just ignore and deny what they don't like.

Yep, Gfm71715's icon is most suitable....a little bird that is all noise and full of shyte. He's done.

I just don't bother with people who allow outside sources to do their thinking FOR them.

 

[archives]

Yes. Republicans freed them (Demonkkkrats opposed, forming the KKK). Republicans gave them some reparations (Demonkkkrats opposed). Republicans granted them citizenship and voting rights (Demonkkkrats opposed both things). Republicans chose and elected the first black representatives and senators (Demonkkkrats opposed).

ALL of the progressions that blacks made during the 1860s-1960s were entirely due to Republicans fighting for them tooth and nail against Demonkkkrat opposition.


While blacks made a lot of progressions during that time, ENTIRELY due to Republicans btw, there were still some lingering issues (such as Jim Crow and segregation). Jim Crow and segregation were both in effect ENTIRELY due to DEMONKKKRATS. It was DEMONKKKRATS who implemented and supported such laws and Republicans were the ones fighting against that racist crap. Those things ended in the 1960s, once again, entirely due to REPUBLICANS fighting for black people's rights.


There is specific reasoning behind why I purposely call them the Demonkkkrat Party.

[1] They regularly exude the attributes of Satan.
[2] They formed and still to this day support the goals of the KKK organization.
[3] They are rats (deceitful liars and manipulators).

So much, where to begin

First off, you are mistaken to think that a party name at any given time defines that party for the rest of history, it is the party's ideology that defines that party, not what they called themselves, and as I pointed out before, the Democrats of the last half of the 19th Century were CONSERVATIVE

Secondly, and if you understood anything about history, the Republicans of the last half of the 19th Century that you attribute all that progress to were LIBERAL Republicans, you really didn't think they were called "radical" cause they were conservative did you?

And regardless of what party did what or what ideology they were based upon to claim that Blacks had it good under Jim Crow is absolutely absurd

Your understanding of history is right up there with your knowledge of the Constitution and climate change

 

[gfm7175]

So much, where to begin

First off, you are mistaken to think that a party name at any given time defines that party for the rest of history,

Not what I said.

it is the party's ideology that defines that party,

That's precisely what I've been hammering on.

not what they called themselves,

I'm using the names that they gave themselves when referring to their ideology over their entire history of existence.

and as I pointed out before, the Democrats of the last half of the 19th Century were CONSERVATIVE

No they weren't.

Secondly, and if you understood anything about history, the Republicans of the last half of the 19th Century that you attribute all that progress to were LIBERAL Republicans,

No they weren't.

you really didn't think they were called "radical" cause they were conservative did you?

I don't care who called who "radical". It has no bearing on this discussion.

And regardless of what party did what or what ideology they were based upon to claim that Blacks had it good under Jim Crow is absolutely absurd

Never made any such claim. Learn how to read and comprehend.

Your understanding of history is right up there with your knowledge of the Constitution and climate change

Yes, it is just as top notch as my understanding of those two things are. Your "understanding" of history is just as pitiful as your "understanding" of those two things are. One thing that seems to be holding you back from learning is reading comprehension.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I just don't bother with people who allow outside sources to do their thinking FOR them.

Sorry tweety, but the chronology of the posts makes you out to be just trying to bluff past your inability to logically and factually prove your declarations and assertions.

I use links to support my statements and opinions/analysis. What have you got? Mental flatulence? "outside sources...", are you referring to HISTORY AND PEOPLE WHO DOCUMENT SUCH? If that's the case, how do YOU determine your stances? Newspapers (outside source), radio/TV commentators (outside source), books (outside source)? Or are you clairvoyant?

Or are you just a failed right wingnut bird....all noise and full of shyte? Whatever, you're just a waste of space at this point. Back in the bin with the other trash.

 

[gfm7175]

I use links to support my statements and opinions/analysis.

No, you appeal to links because you can't think for yourself.

how do YOU determine your stances? Newspapers (outside source), radio/TV commentators (outside source), books (outside source)?

I make use of logic, mathematics, science, engineering, history, etc...