Texas law effectively banning Critical Race Theory in classrooms leads to inclusion of Holocaust denialism materials

#77
#77
DonjoVol said:
I personally wouldn't use the word liberal anymore when referring to the left or anyone who wants to win brownie points with them. I call them leftists or left leaning because that's what they are.
Click to expand...
Is it not progressive now? Liberal kept getting more of a negative connotation to it so they changed it to progressive. That's why so many liberals are offended by being referred to as liberals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
#79
#79
USAFgolferVol said:
I will bet a shiny new dime Donjo doesn't know that southern conservatives were mostly Democrats until the late 60s
Click to expand...
That's false too. Many counties in Tennessee have been voting Republican for decades now or even well over a century. A little research will help you find this out.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was voted against by 21 Senate democrats. Only one of those democrats, Strom Thurmond, left and joined the Republican party. The other 20 stayed in the democrat party until the day they died. Some were even mentors of the current democrat president. Those guys were not conservatives they were progressives. Part of the progressive philosophy is segregation which is why they believed in it strongly and therefore stayed in the democrat party.

The Southern Strategy was also a myth. Nixon won the 1972 election in a landslide. McGovern could have won every southern state and still would have lost in a landslide. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election because he won every southern state with the exception of one. Some southern states did not have their first Republican governor until the 2000s.

Looks like you don't know your history too well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#81
#81
DonjoVol said:
That's false too. Many counties in Tennessee have been voting Republican for decades now or even well over a century. A little research will help you find this out.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was voted against by 21 Senate democrats. Only one of those democrats, Strom Thurmond, left and joined the Republican party. The other 20 stayed in the democrat party until the day they died. Some were even mentors of the current democrat president. Those guys were not conservatives they were progressives. Part of the progressive philosophy is segregation which is why they believed in it strongly and therefore stayed in the democrat party.

The Southern Strategy was also a myth. Nixon won the 1972 election in a landslide. McGovern could have won every southern state and still would have lost in a landslide. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election because he won every southern state with the exception of one. Some southern states did not have their first Republican governor until the 2000s.

Looks like you don't know your history too well.
Click to expand...
I am fully aware of those elections. I wasn't necessarily speaking of Congressional make up as to party. I'm speaking about ideology. Look at the change in party platforms over the past 50-60 years. Pull up the Republican party platforms from 1960 through 1992 and compare them to 1996 through 2020.
 
#87
#87
hog88 said:
And when the Dems started losing southern states. It wasn't the 60s.
Click to expand...
How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South
Up until the post-World War II period, the party’s hold on the region was so entrenched that Southern politicians usually couldn’t get elected unless they were Democrats. But when President Harry S. Truman, a Democratic Southerner, introduced a pro-civil rights platform at the party’s 1948 convention, a faction walked out.
These defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” held a separate convention in Birmingham, Alabama. There, they nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, a staunch opposer of civil rights, to run for president on their “States’ Rights” ticket. Although Thurmond lost the election to Truman, he still won over a million popular votes.
...... The big break didn’t come until President Johnson, another Southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Though some Democrats had switched to the Republican party prior to this, “the defections became a flood” after Johnson signed these acts, Goldfield says. “And so the political parties began to reconstitute themselves.”
By the time Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the Republican party’s hold on white Southerners was firm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and AshG
#88
#88
luthervol said:
How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South
Up until the post-World War II period, the party’s hold on the region was so entrenched that Southern politicians usually couldn’t get elected unless they were Democrats. But when President Harry S. Truman, a Democratic Southerner, introduced a pro-civil rights platform at the party’s 1948 convention, a faction walked out.
These defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” held a separate convention in Birmingham, Alabama. There, they nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, a staunch opposer of civil rights, to run for president on their “States’ Rights” ticket. Although Thurmond lost the election to Truman, he still won over a million popular votes.
...... The big break didn’t come until President Johnson, another Southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Though some Democrats had switched to the Republican party prior to this, “the defections became a flood” after Johnson signed these acts, Goldfield says. “And so the political parties began to reconstitute themselves.”
By the time Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, the Republican party’s hold on white Southerners was firm.
Click to expand...

The Rs hold was so firm the Ds still held majorities in most southern legislatures and governorships until the mid 90s early 2000s. Quit trying to rewrite history over a couple presidential elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#90
#90
hog88 said:
The Rs hold was so firm the Ds still held majorities in most southern legislatures and governorships until the mid 90s early 2000s. Quit trying to rewrite history over a couple presidential elections.
Click to expand...
You seem to be the one wishing to rewrite history. The transition from blue to red is easy to document. The reasons for the transition are fairly obvious.
 
#92
#92
hog88 said:
So obvious it took 30-40 years.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty short time frame for the complete political turnaround of a region.
The link I provided will help you understand what happened during that timeframe.
You're welcome.
 
#93
#93
luthervol said:
That's a pretty short time frame for the complete political turnaround of a region.
The link I provided will help you understand what happened during that timeframe.
You're welcome.
Click to expand...

You're link was only focused on presidential elections. In the discussion of whether a state flips from R-D or visa versa presidential elections are meaningless, it's the state legislatures and governorships that tell the tale.
 
#94
#94
hog88 said:
You're link was only focused on presidential elections. In the discussion of whether a state flips from R-D or visa versa presidential elections are meaningless, it's the state legislatures and governorships that tell the tail.
Click to expand...
And they started moving from blue to red in the late 60's and 70's. Over a 30 year period, the transition was complete. And the reasons why are fairly obvious.
 
#96
#96
hog88 said:
Return of the Solid South: Republican Success in Southern State Legislatures

Why are you so willfully obtuse?
Click to expand...
lol.......Are you trying to prove my point?
From your link....
In the immediate wake of the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats resisted Republican growth by defying the national Democratic party’s position on civil rights.
I argue that Republicans finally overcame Democratic legislative majorities as national political forces came to dominate state legislative elections. Why were these wave elections so powerful? Because, by highlighting national Democratic policies that were locally unpopular, Republican challengers turned the Democratic legislators’ incumbency into a liability.

Talk about willfully obtuse.
 
#97
#97
luthervol said:
lol.......Are you trying to prove my point?
From your link....
In the immediate wake of the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats resisted Republican growth by defying the national Democratic party’s position on civil rights.
I argue that Republicans finally overcame Democratic legislative majorities as national political forces came to dominate state legislative elections. Why were these wave elections so powerful? Because, by highlighting national Democratic policies that were locally unpopular, Republican challengers turned the Democratic legislators’ incumbency into a liability.

Talk about willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...

The legislatures and governorships started changing over in the mid 90s to early 2000s. Not the 60s

This excerpt just shows that the dems have a long resume of being on the wrong side of history.
 
#98
#98
hog88 said:
The legislatures and governorships started changing over in the mid 90s to early 2000s. Not the 60s

This excerpt just shows that the dems have a long resume of being on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...
What it clearly shows is that a lot of white conservatives switched from democrat to republican largely due to racial issues.
If you call that dems being on the wrong side of history, that's on you.
 
#99
#99
Two perspectives on the holocaust?

From the SS…It was the best of times.

From the Jews…it was the worst of times.

I hope this clears everything up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top