Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Actually for once you're correctThe KKK came long before the Dixiecrats, the KKK did not emerge from the Dixiecrats. It was the other way around.The Dixiecrats did not migrate to become Republicans. The Republicans destroyed the Dixiecrats using Federally supported de-segregation, the very thing the Dixiecrats most opposed.
as I accidentally substituted "Southern Democrats" in my mind for the "Dixiecrats".
Except for my error with the "Dixicrats", the rest happens to be true in terms of what I posted. See: Southern Democrats - Wikipedia [scroll down to #3 & #4].
Well, when people claim that "up" means "down" someone has to call them on it.
But when you claim that "conservative" means only one single thing, that's wrong.
Hardly. Only three people switched over to the Republicans.
To protect and maintain the status quo is not "one single thing". It's a whole attitude toward life, society, humanity, and circumstance. For the most part, "conservatives" are the people with the wealth and power, or who want to be the people with wealth and power in a society. Which is why they want to "conserve" (protect and maintain) the attitudes, laws, and systems that generate wealth and power, and put it in the hands of people like themselves. Conservatism is not radical. It does not seek to up end the status quo. The people in the U.S. that currently want to up end the status quo (by establishing theocracy, by returning to slavery and segregation, or by imposing other forms of social and economic fascism) may be calling themselves "conservatives" but they are not conservatives. They are radicals seeking to establish various forms of self-serving fascism.
Did it bother you when Duke endorsed Trump and it took about two weeks before Trump even reacted?
I see that you ignored my link as I was not talking about just those in Congress, plus I corrected myself for you and others when I said that I actually was referring to "Southern Democrats".
Again, you're conflating things as the filibuster was by "Southern Democrats" who are overwhelmingly Republicans today. See: Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia [scroll down to 2.4]
They are not todays Republicans. That's a fabrication and lie. Only three switched over from the supposed Dixiecrat party. If there are more who switched, I would like to know the names. It's just another typical Democrats attempt at smoke and mirrors saying something that isn't actually true.
That is not correct. It appears that you misunderstood the Southern Strategy. The plan was not to get legislators to switch parties, though a few did. The plan was to get the voters to switch parties. And they did. The plan worked. The South used to be strongly Democratic, now it is strongly Republican.
That's true, and she publicly opposed his support. Don the Con? Not so much.
Meanwhile. . . have you ever checked out the exit polls for blacks? Just take a peek at the 2018 midterms.
You ignore what my link says, call it a "lie", but present not one shred of evidence to support your contention that I'm supposedly wrong. On top of that, I dealt with your statement of there only being three in my post #109.
.
Just stating the facts. All it takes is looking at what Democrats did before and after this supposed change took place.You ignore what my link says, call it a "lie", but present not one shred of evidence to support your contention that I'm supposedly wrong. On top of that, I dealt with your statement of there only being three in my post #109.
What a waste of my time trying to have a serious discussion with you is. Sorta reminds me of a joke that could well apply to you:
A guy goes up to a teller in a bank, hands her a note that says "This is a f*** up!".
The teller whispers back "You mean this is a stick-up, don't you?"
He whispers back "No, it's is a f*** up-- I forgot my gun"
No, you are not, and the evidence for this is that you haven't produced one shred of evidence.
I used to teach American history at first but then for 25 years I taught a political science course, so I did the homework a long time ago, and I still do. The Dems changed gradually over the last century and I've linked you to show you how and when, but you just ignore that.
Again, you bring up "Dixiecrats" whereas I've repeatedly told you that I'm referring to the "Southern Democrats" that overwhelmingly today are Republicans. How else could anyone explain how the South went from being overwhelmingly Democratic at the beginning of the 20 century, but then overwhelmingly Republican near the end of that same century, and yet were mostly conservative at both ends?
