Favorite YouTube Videos

[Syne]

Yeah, and the southern strategy has a mythical narrative promoted by the left, seeking to disavow their horrific heritage. Phillips' beliefs are opinion, not fact. Southerners turning republican was steady and gradual from 1928 to 2010, because, aside from race, they were naturally more ideologically aligned with republicans. Southern loyalty to Confederate democrats and democrat use of race were the only things that slowed the realignment. Anti-union southerners did not like the New Deal in 1936. Republican presidents started to win in the south, with Ike in 1952. This is while Jim Crow democrats were still in control. So obviously things other than race motivated them to vote republican. The more southerners quit voting democrat, the more liberal the democrats became, ideologically driving away more southerners. And they kept moving that way even though presidents like Nixon enforced and extended the civil and voting rights acts and enforced Brown v. Board. Republicans didn't even get a majority of the southern congressional districts in the House until 1994. That's how gradual the change was.

Think for yourself, man. Learn enough to do your own heavy lifting.

[Magical Realist]

Yeah, and the southern strategy has a mythical narrative promoted by the left, seeking to disavow their horrific heritage. Phillips' beliefs are opinion, not fact. Southerners turning republican was steady and gradual from 1928 to 2010, because, aside from race, they were naturally more ideologically aligned with republicans. Southern loyalty to Confederate democrats and democrat use of race were the only things that slowed the realignment. Anti-union southerners did not like the New Deal in 1936. Republican presidents started to win in the south, with Ike in 1952. This is while Jim Crow democrats were still in control. So obviously things other than race motivated them to vote republican. The more southerners quit voting democrat, the more liberal the democrats became, ideologically driving away more southerners. And they kept moving that way even though presidents like Nixon enforced and extended the civil and voting rights acts and enforced Brown v. Board. Republicans didn't even get a majority of the southern congressional districts in the House until 1994. That's how gradual the change was.

Think for yourself, man. Learn enough to do your own heavy lifting.

You lose. I cited 3 sources for my argument. And you're just making shit up. That won't cut it. Oh lookie! Here's another citation!

"The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

That same summer of 1963, as key Republican leaders strategized on how to shift their party to the far right racially, the Democrats began to lean in the other direction. Northern constituents were increasingly appalled by the violence, shown almost nightly on broadcast television, of Southern efforts to beat down civil rights protesters. Reacting to the growing clamor that something be done, President Kennedy introduced a sweeping civil rights bill that stirred the hopes of millions that segregation would soon be illegal in employment and at business places open to the public. Despite these hopes, however, prospects for the bill’s passage seemed dim, as the Southern Democrats were loath to support civil rights and retained sufficient power to bottle up the bill. Then on November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. His vice president, Lyndon Johnson, assumed the presidency vowing to make good on Kennedy’s priorities, chief among them civil rights. Only five days after Kennedy’s death, Johnson in his first address to Congress implored the assembly that “no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy’s memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long.” Even under these conditions, it took Johnson’s determined stewardship to overcome three months of dogged legislative stalling before Kennedy’s civil rights bill finally passed the next summer. Known popularly as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it still stands as the greatest civil rights achievement of the era."----http://www.salon.com/2013/12/22/how_the_...ans_party/

[Syne]

Really? Motherjones and Salon? If you think those are credible and unbiased sourced, you're daft. I already told you I'm not playing this boring game of throwing huge block quotes at each other. You can be intellectually honest and try to refute the facts I gave you, or you can be a mindless sheep, regurgitating biased narratives. Since I'm betting you opt for the latter, you're far too sad and boring to debate.

Hell, your own sources contradict each other.

"The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today." - https://www.salon.com/2013/12/22/how_the...ans_party/

"But in the 1940s, racist white southerners gradually began defecting to the Republican Party" - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...hite-south

They can't even agree on when it started. LOL.

[Magical Realist]

I already told you I'm not playing this boring game of throwing huge block quotes at each other.

You were the one that demanded citations. I have quoted 4 of them so far. You have been totally refuted. Move on..

[Syne]

I already told you I'm not playing this boring game of throwing huge block quotes at each other.

You were the one that demanded citations. I have quoted 4 of them so far. You have been totally refuted. Move on..

You haven't even gotten around to supporting your original claim that republicans are "racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, tax-evading, gun-toting a-holes." Your sources indicate southern racism, but even if that was exploited for political expedience, it is not evidence that the whole party is any of the things you claimed.

This seems to tell the opposite story:
10 Most Racist Cities in America Ranked by Hate Crimes


Are ANY of those in the Southern States? LOL.

[Magical Realist]

I already told you I'm not playing this boring game of throwing huge block quotes at each other.

You were the one that demanded citations. I have quoted 4 of them so far. You have been totally refuted. Move on..

You haven't even gotten around to supporting your original claim that republicans are "racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, tax-evading, gun-toting a-holes." Your sources indicate southern racism, but even if that was exploited for political expedience, it is not evidence that the whole party is any of the things you claimed.

This seems to tell the opposite story:
10 Most Racist Cities in America Ranked by Hate Crimes


Are ANY of those in the Southern States? LOL.

Typical "oh shit! I lost the argument" and so change the subject. Lol!

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/6kc25LKJrR0

---

You haven't even gotten around to supporting your original claim that republicans are "racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, tax-evading, gun-toting a-holes." Your sources indicate southern racism, but even if that was exploited for political expedience, it is not evidence that the whole party is any of the things you claimed.

This seems to tell the opposite story:
10 Most Racist Cities in America Ranked by Hate Crimes


Are ANY of those in the Southern States? LOL.

Typical "oh shit! I lost the argument" and so change the subject. Lol!

That was the original subject...go look for yourself. I just humored you while I found it half-entertaining.

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1GNu7ldL1LM

[Syne]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/6nf1OgV449g

[Secular Sanity]

This guy is witty. His latest service goat prank is hilarious.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/56OiF00IiXU