Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
State parties really have nothing to do with national parties. People think that the national party runs everything, but they’re really just a handful of people desperately trying to keep the state parties together.
That’s a large part of why it’s confusing, because local politicians didn’t switch parties they just stopped being aligned with the national party until younger politicians came in.
It’s much more confusing than can be responded to in a couple sentences but good luck getting many to fully understand it so much so they can get succinctly relay that information to a child.
They did control the Mississippi House of Representatives from 1876 to 2011.
But it's incorrect to say that they controlled both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature during that time period because the Republicans controlled the Mississippi State Senate in 2007 and the last time the Democrats controlled it was in 2010.
It would be better to compare 1964 to the prior elections in which the Democrats achieved a landslide victory or 1972 to the prior elections in which the Republicans achieved a landslide victory.
Cochran, Pickering, Morse, and Philips in Mississippi, Watson, Ravenel, Young, and Spence in South Carolina, Helms in North Carolina, Miller, Boyce, and Treen in Louisiana, Callaway and Blitch in Georgia, Kirk in Florida, Martin, Andrews, and Dickinson in Alabama, and Daniel in Virginia, etc. etc. etc.
I just ask if Republicans are still Marx-corresponding, large public debt and public works supporting, free-immigration having, "labor is the creator of capital" touting, free-land hippies led by Benjamin "Capitalism is wrong" Wade and if Dems are still agrarian interest, states'-rights supporting, immigration limiting, Fed-slashers who are highly suspicious of public schools infringing on religious liberty?
For Cochran:
"I’ve known Thad since we were young boys on the Ole Miss campus in 1947, while our teacher-parents were earning their master’s degrees. A decade later, we were back at the university as students. Over the years, we lived in Washington at the same time, while he was in Congress and I was a correspondent for the Boston Globe. Now, like so many Ole Miss alumni our age, we both call Oxford home. Thad and I have plenty of political differences, but he is not the kind to disrupt a friendship with argument. That’s not his style.
Like most Republicans of his vintage in our state, Thad was originally a Democrat. He once told me he voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, when Barry Goldwater’s candidacy and the passage of the Civil Rights Act triggered a stampede by white conservative Mississippians to the Republican Party. Four years later, Thad helped to lead a statewide campaign among disaffected Democrats who supported Richard Nixon. By 1972, he was a successful Republican candidate himself for a seat in the House."
-Curtis Wilkie, 2014
Remember kids, if you switch parties before you hold office, then the parties never changed at all.
Its always weird how they don't really grasp how racist their argument really is. They are suggesting, without any irony, that minorities are just simply too dumb to understand the reality of the situation, its certainly not the republicans who are racists, its really the democrats and every minority group is just too dumb to know it.
Just a reminder that these chuds are the ones bringing Confederate flags to Trump rallies and brought one into the Capitol Building (for the first time in our nation's history) during their attempted insurrection on J6.
Hence why they don’t consider trump forcibly violating e jean carol with his fingers to be rape. They always argue he’s not a rapist. It was “just” sexual assault. The label is all that matters to them.
They prioritize partisan combat. That's their whole thing. Every Republican and every "conservative" is just someone who prioritizes partisan combat. There isn't really much else to understand about their politics, desires, or actions and there never really has been. Anyone who has deeper motives or interests is pretty rapidly run out of the party or just leaves as they become frustrated with the focus on partisan combat.
Tim Miller is very good at illustrating this point, as is Tim Alberta.
Conservatives have a very "leopard can't change its spots" mentality - unless it comes to forgiving a conservative for something they said or did in the past.
In a way, using Byrd as a gotcha is a microcosm of party switch denial itself. Ignore all context and nuance - like, oh the NAACP saying Byrd had become a champion of civil rights - and just focus on the KKK part, much as conservatives focus on the party names and militantly ignore wider historical context.
“Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation,” stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. “Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country."
I care more about who’s openly racist right now. I also care more about who flies the confederate flag. I think these two groups undebatably vote for one party.
It's so fucked that they claim that liberals or Democrats or whatever won't talk about Dixiecrats. That's patently false, I always bring it up whenever this topic comes up and I know lots of other people do too.
As an adult raised by a mom who was a history teacher, this shit boils my blood.
They'll never tell you which counties or politicians switched parties?
Strom Thurmond? Jessie Helms?
They'll also stay silent about the Dixiecrats
I bring them up all the time. The Dixiecrats were a crucial transitional step before they were absorbed into the republican party, which proves the party switch
The statues they tore down were democrats
Yes. And what was that first part again? We tore them down
Robert Byrd. They always bring up Robert Byrd like it's some kind of "gotcha". They never mention that Robert Byrd not only renounced the KKK, but repented his racist views altogether and was a committed proponent of Civil Rights afterward.
When did the party’s flip? Did the party’s flip when Bill and Hillary were members of the Whites only Little Rock Country Club? Did the party’s flip after Hillary eulogized her mentor KKK Member Robert Byrd?
Etc etc. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why an entire political party wouldn't flip due to one person's country club membership, vs why it would due to a fundamental change in the entire country, I don't have the time nor the desire to explain that to you, you absolute pants shitting toddler.
It is ironic that the party of Lincoln now wants to undo amendments 13-15. Historical denialism and political ignorance are being weaponized by the right to once again justify their terrible policies. It should be trivial to discredit this nonsense by referencing who supports the ideals of the Confederacy and hate groups like the KKK today.
Love when people break out this argument, it's a solid indicator that there isn't a point to continuing the discussion. They just aren't going to bring anything to the table worth talking about, it's not worth the effort.
It’s really easy to see the lineage. The ones shouting America first. The ones who want Christianity to run the government. The ones who hate immigrants and obsess over things like “white replacement”. Those are your Klan guys. And who does that sound like? Shit. You’d have to be imbecilic not to see it. It’s actually funny when republicans try to take this tack when they are not trashing black people or MLK. Like they usually do, like you’ve gotta be kidding me with this.
Obama getting elected really fucked with some people's heads. It was truly something to see. I live in a Southern state that had a Democrat senator, and all his opponent had to say was Obama over and over to get elected. It was ridiculous.
Idk why you were downvoted. Dems haven't put in the work for worker's rights and largely don't fight for anything lately. DemSocs being loosely associated doesnt change the main party's problems.
Edit: and its not even that the GOP is a worker's party. They just say they are more and that works.
It wasn't as divided, honestly. There was some bipartisanship. People truly voted for the person, not the party. Voting for a Republican president and Democrat senator was fairly common, and seen as a way to keep accountability. Now, it just means gridlock, because everyone is afraid to work with the other side. They'll be seen as a RINO or DINO.
I remember seeing something showing how both northern democrats and republicans and southern democrats and republicans voted when it came to the civil rights act. Northern politicians, whether democrat or Republican, voted majority for it. Southern politicians, whether democrat or Republican, voted majority against it. In fact, I think all southern republicans voted against it. It was not democrats vs republicans when it came to civil rights. It was north vs south. Throughout the 20th century, there was a kind of complex situation where you had progressives and segregationists in the same party, it wasn’t that there was some sudden party switch that happened over night, it was a gradual shift that happened over time. It was also complex on the Republican end too. Republican mayor of NYC, La Guardia, considered himself to be a socialist. I would be hard pressed to find a single Republican politician today that considers themselves a socialist.
Assholes think we care about the name of the evil more than the evil being committed at all.
The people that committed slavery back then could literally call themselves whatever they wanted. I'd still vote for that same name today if it were the one standing against committing slavery.
The easiest way to sidestep this is to focus on ideology rather than party label as frequently as you can.
“Democrats supported slavery” is a common taking point easily defeated with “did conservatives or progressives support slavery”? If they’re dumb enough to say conservatives fought to abolish slavery, you can pick that apart a million ways over. Gish gallop them over that and they’ll look like an idiot
Wow. These people can comprehend so little. Those primitive skills they boast of are, in fact, the key to their survival --that, and the hivemind of rubes they flock with.
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
That 'Women of the Democrat Party' image is an infamous hoax.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/women-democrats-kkk-robes-photo/
There's a graph on there that claims democrats have held both chambers in Mississippi from the 1800s until 2011...
Where the fuck did they get those numbers from?
Same place they got all their “facts” from.
They make them up. Then they tell you all your facts are made up.
State parties really have nothing to do with national parties. People think that the national party runs everything, but they’re really just a handful of people desperately trying to keep the state parties together.
That’s a large part of why it’s confusing, because local politicians didn’t switch parties they just stopped being aligned with the national party until younger politicians came in.
Exactly.
It’s much more confusing than can be responded to in a couple sentences but good luck getting many to fully understand it so much so they can get succinctly relay that information to a child.
They did control the Mississippi House of Representatives from 1876 to 2011.
But it's incorrect to say that they controlled both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature during that time period because the Republicans controlled the Mississippi State Senate in 2007 and the last time the Democrats controlled it was in 2010.
Literally all you have to do is look at the presidential election of 1964 compared to 1956
It would be better to compare 1964 to the prior elections in which the Democrats achieved a landslide victory or 1972 to the prior elections in which the Republicans achieved a landslide victory.
Or who a KKK member would vote for now, or what party David Duke ran for office in.
Strom Thurmomd and David Duke switched parties.
Cochran, Pickering, Morse, and Philips in Mississippi, Watson, Ravenel, Young, and Spence in South Carolina, Helms in North Carolina, Miller, Boyce, and Treen in Louisiana, Callaway and Blitch in Georgia, Kirk in Florida, Martin, Andrews, and Dickinson in Alabama, and Daniel in Virginia, etc. etc. etc.
I just ask if Republicans are still Marx-corresponding, large public debt and public works supporting, free-immigration having, "labor is the creator of capital" touting, free-land hippies led by Benjamin "Capitalism is wrong" Wade and if Dems are still agrarian interest, states'-rights supporting, immigration limiting, Fed-slashers who are highly suspicious of public schools infringing on religious liberty?
For Cochran:
"I’ve known Thad since we were young boys on the Ole Miss campus in 1947, while our teacher-parents were earning their master’s degrees. A decade later, we were back at the university as students. Over the years, we lived in Washington at the same time, while he was in Congress and I was a correspondent for the Boston Globe. Now, like so many Ole Miss alumni our age, we both call Oxford home. Thad and I have plenty of political differences, but he is not the kind to disrupt a friendship with argument. That’s not his style.
Like most Republicans of his vintage in our state, Thad was originally a Democrat. He once told me he voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964, when Barry Goldwater’s candidacy and the passage of the Civil Rights Act triggered a stampede by white conservative Mississippians to the Republican Party. Four years later, Thad helped to lead a statewide campaign among disaffected Democrats who supported Richard Nixon. By 1972, he was a successful Republican candidate himself for a seat in the House."
-Curtis Wilkie, 2014
Remember kids, if you switch parties before you hold office, then the parties never changed at all.
Richard Shelby and Wes Watkins are two more examples
Its always weird how they don't really grasp how racist their argument really is. They are suggesting, without any irony, that minorities are just simply too dumb to understand the reality of the situation, its certainly not the republicans who are racists, its really the democrats and every minority group is just too dumb to know it.
It's the question they can't answer, "If democrats are the racists, why do black people hate republicans much more?"
The only response they can possibly give is that they're all duped and that's of course an admission they think so little of them
They do.
They just don't care.
Just a reminder that these chuds are the ones bringing Confederate flags to Trump rallies and brought one into the Capitol Building (for the first time in our nation's history) during their attempted insurrection on J6.
They either mumble something about "muh heritage" or straight up say it's photoshopped/AI.
Yep
They can never answer why black Americans, who voted Republican for decades, suddenly switch parties almost overnight!
Not to mention, they really get mad when you point out which party is fighting for confederate flags and statues NOW!
The KKK hasn't supported democratic candidates since LBJ at least.
Except for that time they "endorsed" Obama! Everyone of those mofo need to be.....don't wanna get my last reddit ban....
I encourage these guys to walk into a Klan meeting or any redneck bar and accuse everyone in there of being a democrat.
The meeting is basically a family reunion
That's honestly a great response.
R's are the party of self described Nazis.
"But what about [historical anecdote]"
It's telling how much weight these guys put on labels rather than actions.
What matters to me is which party is more progressive today, and which party will actively fight against oppression.
I don't give a fuck if Democrats were members of the KKK a hundred years ago, we know damn well which party the Nazis and racists support now.
Hence why they don’t consider trump forcibly violating e jean carol with his fingers to be rape. They always argue he’s not a rapist. It was “just” sexual assault. The label is all that matters to them.
They prioritize partisan combat. That's their whole thing. Every Republican and every "conservative" is just someone who prioritizes partisan combat. There isn't really much else to understand about their politics, desires, or actions and there never really has been. Anyone who has deeper motives or interests is pretty rapidly run out of the party or just leaves as they become frustrated with the focus on partisan combat.
Tim Miller is very good at illustrating this point, as is Tim Alberta.
I would pay good money to see these losers go to a klan meeting and ask if anyone there is a Democrat. Would be fun I think.
Using Robert Byrd as a gotcha when he clearly had turned a new leaf by his final years :/
Conservatives have a very "leopard can't change its spots" mentality - unless it comes to forgiving a conservative for something they said or did in the past.
In a way, using Byrd as a gotcha is a microcosm of party switch denial itself. Ignore all context and nuance - like, oh the NAACP saying Byrd had become a champion of civil rights - and just focus on the KKK part, much as conservatives focus on the party names and militantly ignore wider historical context.
The NAACP eulogized him with
I care more about who’s openly racist right now. I also care more about who flies the confederate flag. I think these two groups undebatably vote for one party.
It's so fucked that they claim that liberals or Democrats or whatever won't talk about Dixiecrats. That's patently false, I always bring it up whenever this topic comes up and I know lots of other people do too.
so the guys driving around with confederate flags on their trucks voted for Kamala?
As an adult raised by a mom who was a history teacher, this shit boils my blood.
Strom Thurmond? Jessie Helms?
I bring them up all the time. The Dixiecrats were a crucial transitional step before they were absorbed into the republican party, which proves the party switch
Yes. And what was that first part again? We tore them down
Robert Byrd. They always bring up Robert Byrd like it's some kind of "gotcha". They never mention that Robert Byrd not only renounced the KKK, but repented his racist views altogether and was a committed proponent of Civil Rights afterward.
Etc etc. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why an entire political party wouldn't flip due to one person's country club membership, vs why it would due to a fundamental change in the entire country, I don't have the time nor the desire to explain that to you, you absolute pants shitting toddler.
Lee Atwater spending decades congratulating himself for the Southern Strategy working so well reacting to his party denying this like...
They always bring up Robert Byrd as if he hadn't been a crusader for equal rights ever since he came to his senses.
They think he’s a race traitor.
So despite pulling the "he was in the KKK" card, they're also made that he left the KKK?
Yes. They know he changed but they still try to use it as a cudgel.
If the parties didn’t switch why are southern states red and not blue?
They just try to convince themselves and others they aren't the bad guys. But they know they are the racist fucks. Unless they are incredibly stupid.
It is ironic that the party of Lincoln now wants to undo amendments 13-15. Historical denialism and political ignorance are being weaponized by the right to once again justify their terrible policies. It should be trivial to discredit this nonsense by referencing who supports the ideals of the Confederacy and hate groups like the KKK today.
Love when people break out this argument, it's a solid indicator that there isn't a point to continuing the discussion. They just aren't going to bring anything to the table worth talking about, it's not worth the effort.
This literally happened on Christmas:
Brother-in-law: “Lincoln was a Republican. The confederates were Democrats.”
Me: “Lincoln was a liberal. Which party is currently trying to demand we restore statues of the Confederates?”
He just kinda fumbled around and agreed.
Put the focus on the ideology of they want to talk about the history of the parties.
“Democrats were in the KKK”
“Yeah, well they were the Conservative Party at the time.”
It’s really easy to see the lineage. The ones shouting America first. The ones who want Christianity to run the government. The ones who hate immigrants and obsess over things like “white replacement”. Those are your Klan guys. And who does that sound like? Shit. You’d have to be imbecilic not to see it. It’s actually funny when republicans try to take this tack when they are not trashing black people or MLK. Like they usually do, like you’ve gotta be kidding me with this.
Its amazing that democrats held the house and senate in Alabama until 2010. How??
Obama getting elected really fucked with some people's heads. It was truly something to see. I live in a Southern state that had a Democrat senator, and all his opponent had to say was Obama over and over to get elected. It was ridiculous.
It doesn’t help that Dems have been losing their connections to the working class. Like you said, that election really broke a lot of people’s brains
Idk why you were downvoted. Dems haven't put in the work for worker's rights and largely don't fight for anything lately. DemSocs being loosely associated doesnt change the main party's problems.
Edit: and its not even that the GOP is a worker's party. They just say they are more and that works.
Not what I meant. How did they hold it, until then
Large black population most likely
But they were voting for republicans in federal elections at the same time, it doesnt make a lot of sense.
It wasn't as divided, honestly. There was some bipartisanship. People truly voted for the person, not the party. Voting for a Republican president and Democrat senator was fairly common, and seen as a way to keep accountability. Now, it just means gridlock, because everyone is afraid to work with the other side. They'll be seen as a RINO or DINO.
Thats not really an answer considering that the Alabama dems were passing incredibly conservative laws
Oh. You're not getting the answer you want. Enjoy your day.
You didnt provide an answer you just pretended you knew what you were talking about.
It would be better if you didnt make things up and leave things unanswered instead of just guessing
I lived it, man. I was politically active in a Southern state through the 2000s. You're just not getting the answer you wanted.
So why do they fight so hard to keep people from tearing down statues of Democrats?
When you have t relitigate and explain middle-school history over and over again you know you're not dealing with serious people.
No matter how many times this lie is debunked they'll keep repeating it, I'm frankly tired
I remember seeing something showing how both northern democrats and republicans and southern democrats and republicans voted when it came to the civil rights act. Northern politicians, whether democrat or Republican, voted majority for it. Southern politicians, whether democrat or Republican, voted majority against it. In fact, I think all southern republicans voted against it. It was not democrats vs republicans when it came to civil rights. It was north vs south. Throughout the 20th century, there was a kind of complex situation where you had progressives and segregationists in the same party, it wasn’t that there was some sudden party switch that happened over night, it was a gradual shift that happened over time. It was also complex on the Republican end too. Republican mayor of NYC, La Guardia, considered himself to be a socialist. I would be hard pressed to find a single Republican politician today that considers themselves a socialist.
Assholes think we care about the name of the evil more than the evil being committed at all.
The people that committed slavery back then could literally call themselves whatever they wanted. I'd still vote for that same name today if it were the one standing against committing slavery.
The easiest way to sidestep this is to focus on ideology rather than party label as frequently as you can.
“Democrats supported slavery” is a common taking point easily defeated with “did conservatives or progressives support slavery”? If they’re dumb enough to say conservatives fought to abolish slavery, you can pick that apart a million ways over. Gish gallop them over that and they’ll look like an idiot
Wow. These people can comprehend so little. Those primitive skills they boast of are, in fact, the key to their survival --that, and the hivemind of rubes they flock with.
The United States is a country founded on racism. Both parties are deeply racist, just in their own unique ways.