- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Party Switch
Posted on 2/13/19 at 12:10 pm to Ebbandflow
Posted on 2/13/19 at 12:10 pm to Ebbandflow
So the supposed "switch" in ideology for the parties leading to blacks have the right to vote = the "white guys" being racist? The racist party has always been the democrat party. Just in modern times they find ways to exploit minorities rather than just be forthcoming with their racism.
0
Posted on 2/13/19 at 3:52 pm to Tigahhs97
Decide for yourself, Tigah.
1860
Republicans sought radical social changes, and Democrats sought to maintain the status quo. Republicans sought to centralize power in the federal government, and Democrats sought to maintain the sovereignty of the individual states.
Today
Democrats seek radical social changes, and Republicans seek to maintain the status quo. Democrats seek to maintain centralized power in DC, and Republicans (generally) seek to return sovereignty to the individual states.
The parallels are much more extensive than this.
1860
Republicans sought radical social changes, and Democrats sought to maintain the status quo. Republicans sought to centralize power in the federal government, and Democrats sought to maintain the sovereignty of the individual states.
Today
Democrats seek radical social changes, and Republicans seek to maintain the status quo. Democrats seek to maintain centralized power in DC, and Republicans (generally) seek to return sovereignty to the individual states.
The parallels are much more extensive than this.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:14 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
Lol. Racist Southern conservative white guys used to be Democrats and now they're conservative. Whether or not it's the same person that's switching oh, it's the same families. To try to deny that is laughable
“The Switch” happened when Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was implemented. Notice his famous quote regarding the policy, “I’ll have those (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”
Weird how Robert Byrd never “switched.” The Dems have always been, and still are the true racists. There is a reason why they feel the need to incessantly virtue signal about it.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 5:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
1860
quote:
Today
Doesn't look like much has changed for the Democrats.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 5:27 pm to Tigahhs97
FDR and JFK were inflection points. FDR, for economic ones (New Deal), JFK for social ones (civil rights).
Posted on 2/13/19 at 5:34 pm to Tigahhs97
This is actually a complicated question. Much of it comes from misunderstanding why American coalitions are aligned the way they are. I can go into lots of detail on it, but the short answer is that they didn't necessarily switch. It's more true that certain factions of the Democrats won out (the northeast liberals) who had made a coalition with unions, poor Southern whites, and blacks during FDR. There was a lot of tension within the party as northeast liberals and black people pushed for more civil rights reforms. After the 1964 election, when American blacks voted for Johnson at a much higher clip than before, and black Republicans were isolated by their own party (read The Loneliness of the Black Republican for a great overview of the events of 64 from the Republican side), African-Americans would never go back to the Republican party.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 5:37 pm to Tigahhs97
From my understanding, the parties never really "switched". That comes from the left trying to hide their dark past and place their "sins" on the opposition (the right).
What you have seen however is the two parties moving closer to their respective extremes over time. I am of the opinion that the left has moved exponentially further from center than the right.
This causes people like JFK (for the most part) to look more "right" than "left" by today's standards. However that doesn't fit the narrative the left wants to portray. Their plan is to keep their "heroes" and claim their opposition's as their own.
Hell, as much as I don't like him as a president, their is an argument that can be made that Clinton is closer to center / right of center in today's party and he was a pretty solid middle left when elected.
It is a sliding scale, over time the left moves the center further left and shrinks the range of the right.
pictorial:
50 years ago:
..................L<-----------------------C----------------------->R
today:
L<--------------------------------------C----------------------->R
What you have seen however is the two parties moving closer to their respective extremes over time. I am of the opinion that the left has moved exponentially further from center than the right.
This causes people like JFK (for the most part) to look more "right" than "left" by today's standards. However that doesn't fit the narrative the left wants to portray. Their plan is to keep their "heroes" and claim their opposition's as their own.
Hell, as much as I don't like him as a president, their is an argument that can be made that Clinton is closer to center / right of center in today's party and he was a pretty solid middle left when elected.
It is a sliding scale, over time the left moves the center further left and shrinks the range of the right.
pictorial:
50 years ago:
..................L<-----------------------C----------------------->R
today:
L<--------------------------------------C----------------------->R
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:29 pm to Tigahhs97
All I can tell you is what I know for a fact. My entire family were registered Democrats until Ronald Reagan came along. They were all from Mississippi where I would dare to say the vast majority of white voters were also registered Democrats.
The parties had to change at that point. You had millions of old south Democrats moving to the Republican Party.
The parties had to change at that point. You had millions of old south Democrats moving to the Republican Party.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:30 pm to Tigahhs97
Richard Shelby went from Democrat to Republican in 1994
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:36 pm to biggsc
quote:
Richard Shelby went from Democratic to Republican in 1994
A full 30 years after the last sweeping "civil rights" legislation.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:36 pm to Tigahhs97
Party Switch is a myth perpetrated by the racist democratic party...
and their Marxist media lapdogs
and their Marxist media lapdogs
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 6:57 pm to Loserman
Yup.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 8:25 pm to Tigahhs97
quote:
I have someone arguing with me that the parties switched particularly in reference to economic reasons. Some argue that Lincoln was more like a Democrat with big government is that true?
Any party platform switch for the Dems was in recent history as far as my life is concerned. I grew up in the 60's and all the politicians that were opposing desegregation, the CRA of 1964, and the KKK in general back in those days were Democrats. In fact it was the Republicans that pushed the CRA of 1964 through Congress despite vehement opposition from the Democrats.
One infamous quote of LBJ was in regard to bringing the blacks into the Democratic Party was " I'll have those N-words votin Democrat for the rest of their life"
Posted on 2/13/19 at 9:05 pm to Tigahhs97
Yes there was a split. The deranged left split away into insanity.
Bill Clinton of the early 1990s and Barrack Obama of the early 2000s, at least on illegal immigration, would be unwelcome as modern Democrats.
John F. Kennedy, on about 65-70% of what his policies were, would be a conservative Republican today. He'd be called all the names they love to throw around, racist, sexist, etc. He'd slay way more pussy though. He'd have nuked at least one Muslim capital.
Bill Clinton of the early 1990s and Barrack Obama of the early 2000s, at least on illegal immigration, would be unwelcome as modern Democrats.
John F. Kennedy, on about 65-70% of what his policies were, would be a conservative Republican today. He'd be called all the names they love to throw around, racist, sexist, etc. He'd slay way more pussy though. He'd have nuked at least one Muslim capital.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:24 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
You're tired of me ruining all of your good talking points
You're delusional. You have never posted anything even remotely "good" on this message board.
You may be posting some good stuff on the Justin Bieber Fan Club message board, but, you suck at this message board.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:31 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
Lol. Racist Southern conservative white guys used to be Democrats and now they're conservative. Whether or not it's the same person that's switching oh, it's the same families. To try to deny that is laughable
Did you ever find your shoes?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 10:43 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
Racist Southern conservative white guys used to be Democrats and now they're conservative. Whether or not it's the same person that's switching oh, it's the same families. To try to deny that is laughable
The data in congressional and presidential elections simply does not support this.
When your worldview is based on a lie, a falsehood concocted to trick people, that says something about your worldview.
Posted on 2/14/19 at 3:47 am to Tigahhs97
quote:
I have someone arguing with me that the parties switched particularly in reference to economic reasons. Some argue that Lincoln was more like a Democrat with big government is that true?
quote:
I don’t know what an Alter means but if your trying to say I’m a liberal in disguise or something you are an idiot.
Your OP was pretty weak - It's like asking the board to evaluate a dream you had.
Normally, an OP puts forth some relevant fact or issue and the OP posits some opinion about the issue. Or the OP puts forth something humorous.
You did none of these things - Your OP falls in the category of "dear diary'
Calling you an alter is really just a response without a lot of thought behind it - but it does line up with your OP. .
Posted on 2/14/19 at 7:24 am to kingbob
quote:
You didn’t need a license to do, well, anything. There were no “employment” laws that had to be followed, no environmental impact studies, no affirmative action quotas, building permits, zoning laws, entitlement programs, insurance, etc. at the federal level, education, food safety, medicine, and to a large extent even manufacturing and agricultural were completely unregulated, and the federal government was only minimally involved in building infrastructure.
This is solid analysis. While there were a handful of things the Feds may have been doing around the edges, they were too small and remote for most folks to have any impact, particularly outside things like the (extraordinarily small by today's standards) military, USPS, Customs, Federal Courts - but statistically zero compared to today's Federal leviathan.
All of that was 20th Century expansion by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, etc.
Posted on 2/14/19 at 7:26 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Racist Southern conservative white guys used to be Democrats and now they're conservative.
I know the race baiters on the left want to argue this, but it simply isn't true or supportable by any evidence.
As the South became less racist, it became more Republican. Period. Full stop.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News