stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Nanker said: You do know that the Civil Rights acts that Johnson's administration passed only did so because of Republican support in the Senate? Many Southern Democrats - including the illustrious Fulbright voted against it. Very well aware. Fulbright was one of the few Southern Democrats that didn't jump ship. Hell, even Strom Thrumond was a Democrat at one point. I'd argue the party platform reversal started in the early 1900s. Most would agree the New Deal was the final straw so to speak couple with Truman's continued efforts towards desegregation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, Nanker said: What was he then - a Whig? No, that's Maxine Waters. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 53 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So you think this is a great accomplishment of Kim?? You are a total idiot! One wonders, if Kim was paid out of a corrupt fund Trump's team raised through shaking down corporations like AT&T Oh this is too easy Yeah, because he, like Trump, really needs the money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, B-Man said: Ahhhh, a drive-by History re-write,.......................................Always the sign of a loser.... I love these historical re-writes. Lincoln was actually a Democrat, the KKK (the militant wing of the Democratic Party) is now a GOP organization, Andrew Jackson, whose nickname became the Democrat party mascot, is not a Democrat, all because reasons. Edited May 10, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah, because he, like Trump, really needs the money. That's actually hilarious. The Kim dynasty, which owns, outright, the entire GDP of North Korea; along with countless (T) trillions of dollars worth of untapped mineral wealth and land resources, conducts their business for the purposes of peeling of a few hundred thowe indirectly paid by Novartis. That's how he thinks the world works. Really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: So you think this is a great accomplishment of Kim?? You are a total idiot! One wonders, if Kim was paid out of a corrupt fund Trump's team raised through shaking down corporations like AT&T Oh this is too easy That's beautiful. But I'm not giving your beer back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: **************************** But it's perfectly fine to trade 5 terrorists for one deserter. Moron. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 2 hours ago, stony said: Very well aware. Fulbright was one of the few Southern Democrats that didn't jump ship. Hell, even Strom Thrumond was a Democrat at one point. I'd argue the party platform reversal started in the early 1900s. Most would agree the New Deal was the final straw so to speak couple with Truman's continued efforts towards desegregation. The guy who attempted to stop Leon Czolgosz from killing William McKinley was a black guy going to see the Republican president as most blacks were still supporting the Republican in 1900. But, as you pointed out, things were changing then. Blacks began moving north in early 1900's and the political machines in the northern cities (mostly Democratic) began courting them. Chicago's housing projects were seen as a gift to the black community by the Chicago political machines. So blacks began to switch over during that time. But the vast majority of blacks were not allowed to vote until '64 and that's why northern blacks were so important to making the change happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: The guy who attempted to stop Leon Czolgosz from killing William McKinley was a black guy going to see the Republican president as most blacks were still supporting the Republican in 1900. But, as you pointed out, things were changing then. Blacks began moving north in early 1900's and the political machines in the northern cities (mostly Democratic) began courting them. Chicago's housing projects were seen as a gift to the black community by the Chicago political machines. So blacks began to switch over during that time. But the vast majority of blacks were not allowed to vote until '64 and that's why northern blacks were so important to making the change happen. Yeah, all good points. The obvious switch was in '48 w/the States Rights Dem Party. But I think the foundations of the switching of the party platforms was even earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Koko78 said: I love these historical re-writes. Lincoln was actually a Democrat, the KKK (the militant wing of the Democratic Party) is now a GOP organization, Andrew Jackson, whose nickname became the Democrat party mascot, is not a Democrat, all because reasons. I thought is was pretty common knowledge the party platforms changed dramatically in the first half of the 20th century and from an ideological and geographical standpoint, Lincoln's Republican politics (Northern, coastal, strong federal government, the income tax etc) more closely resemble the Democrats of today. All while the Democrats of that era and up until the 1960s were southern based, pro-state government, socially conservative. Hardly a re-write. Lincoln also f'ing hated the Know Nothing Party, which one could make an educated comparison to the anti-immigration, nativist elements of the Tea Party of today. Edited May 10, 2018 by stony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, stony said: Lincoln also f'ing hated the Know Nothing Party, which one could make an educated comparison to the anti-immigration, nativist elements of the Tea Party of today. ..............."Oh, what a giveaway You apparently are a member of the "Know Nothing" party You certainly no little of Republicans, and less of Conservatives. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: ..............."Oh, what a giveaway You apparently are a member of the "Know Nothing" party You certainly no little of Republicans, and less of Conservatives. . No/know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, stony said: I thought is was pretty common knowledge the party platforms changed dramatically in the first half of the 20th century and from an ideological and geographical standpoint, Lincoln's Republican politics (Northern, coastal, strong federal government, the income tax etc) more closely resemble the Democrats of today. All while the Democrats of that era and up until the 1960s were southern based, pro-state government, socially conservative. Hardly a re-write. Lincoln also f'ing hated the Know Nothing Party, which one could make an educated comparison to the anti-immigration, nativist elements of the Tea Party of today. You don't get to trade histories with another political party because yours looks terrible in comparison. Also, are you disavowing Kennedy as a neo-con? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You don't get to trade histories with another political party because yours looks terrible in comparison. Also, are you disavowing Kennedy as a neo-con? Where is this "trading history" part coming from? I simply pointed out the party platforms have changed. Like I said, this is pretty common knowledge. My old man is more red than Mars and he blows a gasket with this "Lincoln was a Republican" stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, stony said: Where is this "trading history" part coming from? I simply pointed out the party platforms have changed. Like I said, this is pretty common knowledge. My old man is more red than Mars and he blows a gasket with this "Lincoln was a Republican" stuff. You didn't "simply" point that out. You specifically claimed Lincoln a Democrat. He wasn't. He was a Republican. His successes and failures are Republican successes and failures. You think the Baltimore Ravens' best running back in franchise history was Jim Brown, don't you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 48 minutes ago, stony said: I thought is was pretty common knowledge the party platforms changed dramatically in the first half of the 20th century and from an ideological and geographical standpoint, Lincoln's Republican politics (Northern, coastal, strong federal government, the income tax etc) more closely resemble the Democrats of today. All while the Democrats of that era and up until the 1960s were southern based, pro-state government, socially conservative. Hardly a re-write. Lincoln also f'ing hated the Know Nothing Party, which one could make an educated comparison to the anti-immigration, nativist elements of the Tea Party of today. You obviously have no clue what the numerous tea parties stand for: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/tea-partiers-release-document-of-principles/38922/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You didn't "simply" point that out. You specifically claimed Lincoln a Democrat. He wasn't. He was a Republican. His successes and failures are Republican successes and failures. You think the Baltimore Ravens' best running back in franchise history was Jim Brown, don't you? Yup, got me there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Just now, stony said: Yup, got me there. Ok, you got nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: Ok, you got nothing I'm still curious where I said Lincoln was a Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts