Reply With Quote
There was (at some point) b/c your party was offering free . Doesn't mean the leadership magically didn't become not racist.
Is "spazz" a new crutch word for you?
lol break out det thesaurus
There was (at some point) b/c your party was offering free . Doesn't mean the leadership magically didn't become not racist.
Ditto. How was it weak?
He will never answer this question.
Ever.
"it was weak" is not a topical take, it's your take on someone else's take.
what's your take on party realignment post 1965?
You spend countless posts in every thread finding the smallest things you can battle over and often in an effort to not actually regard the subject matter. This is pretty well case in point.
take a look in the mirror, dudeYou spend countless posts in every thread finding the smallest things you can battle over
I just gave you my take, bruh. What's your point?
I'm fine with taking the look at chump. I didn't say nobody else ever does this. It's not a secret that this is chump's prime strategy.
that you don't have one, or more precisely, that you refuse to say what it is.
You wil never answer this question.
Ever.
Let your squirming begin!
ah, I think I'll skip the pillow talk.
I've seen this movie before, it never ends well.
lol giving up so easily.
fat jokes incoming!
if they're true are they still just jokes? dispute them.
How do you know it's true?
Freedom plus groceries and work in the New Deal; that's when black folks started to vote for Democrats.
The other free you're referring to (perhaps without realizing it, and more crucially for realignment) was civil rights for non-white people and you'd be wrong to blame that on the Dems, it couldn't have gotten across the finish line without Republicans.
I agree that being in the political parties that conferred civil rights on nonwhites didn't make anyone magically not racist. No one in this thread has suggested it did.
You probably wish you were more educated. A higher percentage of house Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. In the Senate, Democrat and former KKK member and hero of Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd fillibustered the act for 14 hours and 13 minutes. You are trying to give some sanitized "party realignment" when the truth is that racist Democrats didn't all just jump ship.
Bruh, I gave my input. I've seen this debate a million times over. It bores me.
"Squirming"
Yep, squirming in overdrive since I called it.Bruh, I gave my input. I've seen this debate a million times over. It bores me.
You wil never answer this question.
Ever.
Today's chump
You still haven't answered the question.
And you never will.
As predicted.
That question has been addressed in convo multiple times. If you weren't busy grudge posting, you might've noticed.
You still haven't answered the question.
And you never will.
As predicted.
I don't think so. There's nothing sanitized about saying that party realignment started happening after the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1965. That is when it started.
No one said the shift was instant. No one said the shift made one party magically immune to racism.
Over time, southern Democrats became Republicans and solid Democratic states became solidly Republican.
In Texas this really didn't start happening until the 1980s, but shrewd political operators saw the writing on the wall well beforehand.
Nope, you simply never answered the question.
And you never will.
There it is -- all you have to do is say yes or no.
But you won't.
It's killing you.
So you'll have to squirm more.
lol
You said party realignment of 1965. I'd say that's rather definitive and "instant" in politics. Of course I know about shifts over decades, but you're the one who insisted, winer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions