…& The Confederate Flag was raised on ”Our State Capitol, As We Whistling Dixie”! God Bless The Confederacy! Those Negroes still voting Republican…Right?
Parent Upset With Shane Beamer
- Thread starter RubbinTheRock07
- Start date
So being a Conservative Football Coach in SC; Shane & Oklahoma; Grundy, will make you lose money? Really? Does this work in politics also?
Actual radical political polarity shifts happen much more slowly than the 24 hour news cycle. As stated earlier, the shift started with TR+Bull Moose in the early 20th century and the full and final effects weren’t fully realized until 100 years later.
1. Antifa means Anti-Fascist, Right?
2. Who is the leader of Anti-Fascist?
3 Why hasn’t any Anti-Fascist been arrested for January 6 Insurrection?
4. Why has “Only” Trump Supporters, including Proud Boys, keep getting jail sentences for January 6 Insurrection?
Antifa is a tool of the NWO! Because the NWO politicians are in power & they’ll do Anything to stay in power. Unfortunately, you’re going to find this out the hard way.
This is why True US History must be taught, this statement is 100% incorrect! I.e. David Duke, Donald Sterling, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News & Donald Trump to name a few in the past 50 years have been much more insulting! Also, you may want to speak with Black or Hispanic people before You Try Speaking For Us!
Last edited:
But your conspiravy theory does not answer my questions! Feel free to say “The ANSWER does Not Exists because Antifa is Not Real!
Joe Biden is an idiot to.
Anyone that supports earnest the racist needs to check out their own attics...
You opinion is acknowledged, but does not make the original statement by Flatrock true!
Anyone who "thinks the Democrats are better for black people" needs a better education.
Hispanics are learning much quicker.
Hispanics are learning much quicker.
Again, you opinion is acknowledged! However, in my 64 years in earth, lived through the Jim Crow era etc… the Republican Party (As A Whole) compared to the Democratic Party (As A Whole) does not exists for the best interest of Americans, especially those of color! Also, I trust, as do you, that Hispanics learn that lesson as I have!
I have a MA degree, do I need more education?
Wow…Now what does that (False Propaganda) has to do with January 6 & statement by Flat Rock, Your Friend In Conspiracy Theory!?
Somehow a thread about Shane Beamer has turned into a southern political science and current politics discussion. That’s why I pay to be here
But we are still rooting for Clemson to make the final CFP, right?
I mean ... we are still doing that, right?
"You'd better get on board, son ... 'cause da train, she's a leaving! And she ain't stopping until we's get to where she's a going!" - RGL
I mean ... we are still doing that, right?
"You'd better get on board, son ... 'cause da train, she's a leaving! And she ain't stopping until we's get to where she's a going!" - RGL
It is even more mind boggling that in sc politics that blindly follows the Republican Party as long as anyone has R besides their name. You have party members who all but have a white robe and a cloth dunce cap on their head within the party, but still accepts them within the party. Then claim that democrats have done nothing for black folks, like you are/have been black to offer an uninformed opinion. But someone was elected to be the voice the way some think they are the voice of any minority.
Well it’s obvious in Pennsylvania you have people to blindly follow anyone with a “D” next to their name. In what world would someone who just suffered a stroke be polling at 45%???? Fetterman would most definitely be wearing a dunce cap except they can’t find one to fit his Neanderthal head.
This thread deserved to be aborted
People also seem to have forgotten how many blue dog Democrats were still around up until the late 2000s.
I think your above description of the conservative shift in the Republican Party (and the urbanization and liberal shift of the Democratic Party), and the general ideological polarization that was a shift from the class/business coalitions that had defined parties in the past, is what led to the defection of most southerners. Certainly, part of that was the more libertarian bent of conservatism with regard to federal power to enforce civil rights, but I would say that the very long process of defections is at least some evidence that, while federal civil rights legislation was certainly a major motivating factor (and probably what ultimately untethered many southern politicians from the Democratic Party), it was not the only factor that pushed southerners into the Republican Party and it might not have even be sufficient without the overall conservative shift initiated by Goldwater, Buckley, et al. (and initiated by Taft). Further, southerners became more Republican as the south abandoned its official racial prejudice.
Anyway, I don't know if I totally agree with these pieces, but they make some interesting points:
https://areomagazine.com/2019/04/03/the-party-switch-myth/ (this one does discuss and credit civil rights for quite a bit of the switch, but it also goes into the influence of the conservative movement on Republicans and the distaste of early conservative leaders for inveterate Dixiecrats like Wallace)
The Myth of Republican Racism | National Review
The unsinkable Representative Charles B. Rangel appeared on C-SPAN over the weekend. Why unsinkable? Well, in 2010 the House of Representatives censured the New York Democrat by a vote of 333 to 79…
www.nationalreview.com
The Party of Civil Rights | National Review
This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the clic…
www.nationalreview.com
"Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.
...
The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South — but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.
At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race — but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.
There's a lot more to quote here, but I don't want this post to be too long so I'm putting it in a spoiler:
The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.
There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
...
While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North...
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this — I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.
It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation — and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.
...
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them ******s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.
There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
...
While Republican affiliation was beginning to grow in the South in the late 1930s, the GOP also lost its lock on black voters in the North, among whom the New Deal was extraordinarily popular. By 1940, Democrats for the first time won a majority of black votes in the North...
If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow.
Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans. One of the loudest Democratic segregationists in the House was Texas’s John Dowdy, a bitter and buffoonish opponent of the 1964 reforms, which he declared “would set up a despot in the attorney general’s office with a large corps of enforcers under him; and his will and his oppressive action would be brought to bear upon citizens, just as Hitler’s minions coerced and subjugated the German people. I would say this — I believe this would be agreed to by most people: that, if we had a Hitler in the United States, the first thing he would want would be a bill of this nature.” (Who says political rhetoric has been debased in the past 40 years?) Dowdy was thrown out in 1966 in favor of a Republican with a very respectable record on civil rights, a little-known figure by the name of George H. W. Bush.
It was in fact not until 1995 that Republicans represented a majority of the southern congressional delegation — and they had hardly spent the Reagan years campaigning on the resurrection of Jim Crow.
...
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them ******s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.
Last edited:
Well as a Black Man, I can safely say this does not apply to me & I, “Unlike You” will not try speaking for “Black People!”
Also, Sir, who does, in Your Opinion does Rich White Conservatives speak for?
According to the NWO they are real. They’re the ones who hired them, trained & named them.
Don’t know NWO, but the US Intelligence & Donald Trump FBI says they do not exists! Proud Boys does exists & along with other White/Christian MAGA Nationals were & are being prosecuted for attacking Our US Capitol on January 6!
Also if your NWO does have them existing:
1. Who are the leaders?
2. Doesn’t Antifa means Anti-Facist?
3. Why would a group your saying exists & is anti MAGA, not identified nor arrested for January 6th?
Will you losers shit the fvck up about politics? Every goddam thread around his gets ruined because you phags cant let anything go without putting political opinions outthere.
You need to wake up, Brother! That was a false flag staged event! The goal was to make it look like trump supporters for the purpose of erecting an unscalable fence around the Capital Building with guards stationed around it. You’re not too far away from seeing why erecting an unscalable wall was necessary for our NWO Government to implement.
It's fine to believe in what you believe in, but is it that hard to leave it out of a thread that had nothing to do with this kind of BS? I mean come on. Take it to whatever the politics and religion board is called.
I’m not the one who turned this into a political thread. I
Was replying to a political post someone posted.
You are actively contributing to keeping it going. Just stop. Sound like a 6 year old with a response like that.
Lmao at grouping blacks and Hispanics together as if they’re one and the same
Hey buddy. Discuss the thread, not racism in politics. Awesome, thanks. Go Tigers.
Everyone flexes their internet nuts in these threads and it’s hilarious! Money worth it on these lol
