For the Leftists here, a Question about your hypocritical agenda.

I'm not looking to sway them. I'm looking to catch them in hypocrisy.

You're not going to "catch them in hypocrisy" for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, the audience you're attempting to address simply is not here on this site. It's origins aren't from the Left in general, and it's too young, and therefore too small, to have much (of any) of your intended audience.

Next, the very title of your thread tells the casual reader, regardless of political persuasion, that an "honest discussion" is not what you're really interested in. The title uses "Leftists" in a pejorative manner and in the same sentence declares them to have a "hypocritical agenda".

And finally, those who DO have a hypocritical agenda just. Don't. Care. Therefore your rant will fall on deaf ears anyway.

MOST people, Left, Right, Middle-of-the-road, just want to live their lives...roof over their head, food on the the table, raise their kids, etc. Politically, most people really only have a few political issues which they care about anyway, and decide how they vote based on that. Might be employment, might be environmental stuff, might be abortion rights...heck, it might just be "how Dad voted".

You have good points. But you'll likely never get an honest discussion from your intended audience the way you started out.
 

M5-Shogun

Member
You are really wrong on this. The party flip is not a myth. Republicans were the 'liberal' party until early in the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt was a famous progressive. As was Lincoln, obviously.

The Southern Democrats were pro-segregation starting with Andrew Johnson and only ending when Lyndon Johnson passed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. Woodrow Wilson was the one who instituted racial segregation in the federal service, after T. Roosevelt had integrated it not long before. FDR was nowhere near the rabid segregationist that Wilson was, and he wanted to institute more racially advanced policies, but was blocked by the Southern Democrats. You should do some research of FDR - he was a patrician, and probably mildly racist, but definitely not a rabid segregationist (look up Executive Order 8802). Truman, his VP, integrated the military, over the protests of Southern Democrats (many of whom left the party to found the Dixiecrats).

Southern Democrats - there are too many to mention, but look up Jesse Helms, George Wallace, Fielding Wright, Robert Byrd, etc. And look up the Dixiecrat party - they specifically removed themselves from the Democrats over integration (which they opposed). When the Dixiecrat party couldn't get enough traction, they joined the Republicans (starting with Nixon, and his famous 'Southern Strategy').

This is probably the only one of your post replies that actually made me think about how to respond, mostly because you're categorically incorrect.

The "Party Flip" you keep referencing simply didn't happen. That's what we call a conspiracy. Why? It's quite simple:

1. Strom Thurmond and Helms were the ONLY Democrats that flipped to the Republican party that participated in the senate's fight against segregation that I can find evidence of. All of the others, such as Robert Byrd, Wallace etc. never flipped during their lifetimes, nor were they thrown out. Wikipedia, of all things, is right here. Do your research, please. I'm not going to argue with someone who denies outright facts.

2. Jesse Owens was not invited to the White House. He was an Olympic Gold Medalist, and embarassed the National Socialists in their own country. That article also mentions how FDR appointed a former KKK member to the SCOTUS.

3. Dixiecrats was a faction of the Democratic party, never an actual party or splinter of it. You need to re-read history. I'm not going to argue facts.

Nixon changed his views on Civil Rights after he was elected, that's true. But it's more nuanced than you're letting on.

For one, Republicans have always been economically conservative, even under Theodore Roosevelt. They opposed many subsidies and expansions of government in areas where it didn't need to be. Coolidge continued this, as he is famous for vetoing dozens of bills pushed across his desk.


I also got this for you to read.

Less than a decade after Nixon's supposed Southern Strategy, Jimmy Carter won the election, including most of the South. Look up Clinton's elections too. Other than the 1980s, 8 years of which were under the enduringly popular Ronald Reagan, who won almost every state in his second run, you can't deny facts.

I actually think people are hiding behind the 'statute of limitations'. This means that the racists essentially got away with it - they repressed people for 100 years without consequence.

And we do go after old people found to have committed genocide (Nazis even today), or Southerners found to have killed civil rights workers. This literally happens all the time.

Prosecuting old people and throwing them into prisons where they'll surely die in no time flat is not my idea of justice. Same with National Socialists who escaped to the US. What good is putting a 90+ year old man in a prison cell where he's going to die inevitably from maltreatment at the hands of prison guards. Many of these people are in nursing homes or assisted living. It's not humane, regardless of their actions. I'm not the type to put geriatric commies behind bars either. I'd rather just expose them for their crimes and have society shun them.

Actually, under US law, if your father was found culpable for murder, and there was a subsequent claim against his estate, then, yes, the inheritance could be confiscated.
Nope. Not in all circumstances. They can certainly try, but if the property was disbursed and held beyond the SoL that's not going to happen.

In any case, sins of the father. Your morality is not morality to me.

The blacks were effectively taxed for 100 years, and prevented from accruing capital. So they had to pay the financial cost. And we just leave it at that, I guess - 'sorry your farms and businesses were burned'; 'sorry we kept you out of the professions'; 'best of luck rebuilding from scratch again!'.
The people involved are gone. What are you going on about? there's no separating the government's bank account from every citizen. If you make them pay, it's the taxpayers footing the bill. You must really think money grows on trees.

There is a big difference here. After 1 generation, an Irish person can effectively disappear into the larger white population. The Southern race statutes specifically said that 'a single drop of black blood' was enough to keep someone categorized as 'black', and therefore subject to segregation laws. This was not that long ago - I was a kid when SCOTUS overturned Loving v. Virginia.

Look, I am all for ignoring race, but the Southerners wouldn't let it happen, and as a result, the black middle class was effectively prevented from existing for almost 100 years. Often, literally, by fire and terror. Are we just going to ignore that fact? I don't see how that is moral.

That's wrong. You may not be able to see the physical, cultural and lingual differences between different groups of people, but history doesn't lie. It's easy to pick out people's ethnicity based on physical appearance oftentimes. So someone familiar with the features, accents or cultural quirks of the Irish, something that someone in the 20th century certainly could, then it doesn't matter how many generations removed. You certainly have noticed that lower class Black people have a specific slang accent they use. The same is among different ethnic Europeans. Italian-Americans have their own dialectal differences from others for instance.

Also, wow. Total boomer. That makes perfect sense why you hold the views you do.
 

M5-Shogun

Member
More like you grew up in the context of the 60s and 70s counterculture. I grew up in the 2000s counterculture a communist but turned against it once they started going after gamers in the Gamergate movement of 2012-2015
 

roscoe

Well-known member
This is probably the only one of your post replies that actually made me think about how to respond, mostly because you're categorically incorrect.

The "Party Flip" you keep referencing simply didn't happen. That's what we call a conspiracy. Why? It's quite simple:

1. Strom Thurmond and Helms were the ONLY Democrats that flipped to the Republican party that participated in the senate's fight against segregation that I can find evidence of. All of the others, such as Robert Byrd, Wallace etc. never flipped during their lifetimes, nor were they thrown out. Wikipedia, of all things, is right here. Do your research, please. I'm not going to argue with someone who denies outright facts.

2. Jesse Owens was not invited to the White House. He was an Olympic Gold Medalist, and embarassed the National Socialists in their own country. That article also mentions how FDR appointed a former KKK member to the SCOTUS.

3. Dixiecrats was a faction of the Democratic party, never an actual party or splinter of it. You need to re-read history. I'm not going to argue facts.

Nixon changed his views on Civil Rights after he was elected, that's true. But it's more nuanced than you're letting on.

For one, Republicans have always been economically conservative, even under Theodore Roosevelt. They opposed many subsidies and expansions of government in areas where it didn't need to be. Coolidge continued this, as he is famous for vetoing dozens of bills pushed across his desk.


I also got this for you to read.

Less than a decade after Nixon's supposed Southern Strategy, Jimmy Carter won the election, including most of the South. Look up Clinton's elections too. Other than the 1980s, 8 years of which were under the enduringly popular Ronald Reagan, who won almost every state in his second run, you can't deny facts.

You are still wrong here. I am sorry, but you need to do a lot more reading. The Southern Democrats fought integration. As in, all of them. And the Dixiecrats called themselves that because they abandoned the Democratic party, especially after Truman integrated the military.

1614563707127.png


Here are the Southern Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Alabama
John Sparkman (D)
J. Lister Hill (D)

Arkansas
John L. McClellan (D)
J. William Fulbright (D)

Florida
Spessard Holland (D)
George Smathers (D)

Louisiana
Allen J. Ellender (D)
Russell B. Long (D)

Mississippi
John C. Stennis (D)
James Eastland (D)

Missouri
Stuart Symington (D)
Edward V. Long (D)

North Carolina
B. Everett Jordan (D)
Sam Ervin (D)

South Carolina
2. Strom Thurmond (D)
3. Olin D. Johnston (D)

Tennessee
Albert Gore Sr. (D)
Herbert S. Walters (D)

Virginia
1. Harry F. Byrd (D)
2. Absalom Willis Robertson (D)

West Virginia
1. Robert Byrd (D)
2. Jennings Randolph (D)

Here is a map of the senate seats in 1964:
1614564733989.png


Here is a map of the Senate seats today:
1614564777244.png


The South, formerly almost completely Democrat, has become Republican. The rest of the country has similarly flipped.
 

M5-Shogun

Member
You've switched the argument/moved the goalposts. Previously you were claiming that the Segregationalist Democrats left to join the Republicans. Now? You're saying the South and North flipped support for parties. That's 100% apples and oranges bollocks.

For one, the Democrats we've mentioned thus far continued to serve, in some cases into the 80s, 90s and 2000s. They never were replaced by Republicans until after they died. Culturally, the South has shifted from its racist past. Surely, it still persists in some areas, but overall it has become a much more diverse and tolerant place than it was in the 60s. That cultural shift is reflected in its changes to its politics. The Republican party's conservatism certainly has changed, as has the Democratic liberalism. But fundamentally the Dems are STILL a party that are pushing down one or more people in favor of a favored group. Republicans generally treat people as equals, with the exception of some Trumpism supporters like Marjorie Taylore Greene, who may as well be the AOC of the Republican party.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You've switched the argument/moved the goalposts. Previously you were claiming that the Segregationalist Democrats left to join the Republicans. Now? You're saying the South and North flipped support for parties. That's 100% apples and oranges bollocks.

For one, the Democrats we've mentioned thus far continued to serve, in some cases into the 80s, 90s and 2000s. They never were replaced by Republicans until after they died. Culturally, the South has shifted from its racist past. Surely, it still persists in some areas, but overall it has become a much more diverse and tolerant place than it was in the 60s. That cultural shift is reflected in its changes to its politics. The Republican party's conservatism certainly has changed, as has the Democratic liberalism. But fundamentally the Dems are STILL a party that are pushing down one or more people in favor of a favored group. Republicans generally treat people as equals, with the exception of some Trumpism supporters like Marjorie Taylore Greene, who may as well be the AOC of the Republican party.

What? You think senators and congress-people exist without their electorate? The people elected the Representatives/Senators. The congressional representatives don't just exist absent their constituency. The Democratic party stopped supporting segregation. So Southerners stopped electing Democrats (or they flipped). This happened in large numbers - look at the statehouse elections. Prior to WW2, all Southern state houses were held by Democratic majorities. Today - only Virginia is Democratic.

You are simply not correct on this point.
 

M5-Shogun

Member
People shifted their viewpoints around. Racists began to die out, and more. You're telling straight up lies about the "party flip" conspiracy. I can tell you've never looked at the numbers. The Republicans have not supported segregation, and you're grasping at straws here. There's been no major rollback of the civil rights victories of the 1960s, and if you think you're going to win by using the same left wing/black supremacist conspiracies vomited out since the early 2000s, think again.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
People shifted their viewpoints around. Racists began to die out, and more. You're telling straight up lies about the "party flip" conspiracy. I can tell you've never looked at the numbers. The Republicans have not supported segregation, and you're grasping at straws here. There's been no major rollback of the civil rights victories of the 1960s, and if you think you're going to win by using the same left wing/black supremacist conspiracies vomited out since the early 2000s, think again.

People shifted their viewpoints around You mean the entire South shifted their viewpoints around? And suddenly saw the light?

Holy cow . . .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
More like you grew up in the context of the 60s and 70s counterculture. I grew up in the 2000s counterculture a communist but turned against it once they started going after gamers in the Gamergate movement of 2012-2015

Uhh. Gamergate?

OK, I gotta go do some adult stuff. I will come back to this later.
 

M5-Shogun

Member
People shifted their viewpoints around You mean the entire South shifted their viewpoints around? And suddenly saw the light?

Holy cow . . .
No, the South's priorities and viewpoints changed as a whole. Instead of segregation, they focused on what are probably the biggest stalwarts of what we know now as Neo-Conservatism - Interventionism, low taxes, de-regulation etc.

Uhh. Gamergate?

OK, I gotta go do some adult stuff. I will come back to this later.

Yes. Prior to that I personally was involved in the counterculture of the 2000s. A Communist, and far left one at that who believed socialism was the best thing since sliced bread. Wanted it badly, alienated myself from my family and community etc.

Then Gamergate was a wakeup. A hobby, gaming, that I had all of my life had been attacked and the feminists, whom I had distaste for already, were the aggressors. I chose then to leave. Over those 8 or so years, my viewpoints have shifted, finally settling where I am today.

You mean to tell me the hippie counterculture was somehow more noble or moral? No, it was a bunch of selfish boomer kids rebelling against the strict structures of the Depression and Silent Generation era parents they had.
 
Top