Congrats

[Dillenger1914]

FYI, I worship none but the one true God.

Apologies.

 

[Eastmandawg]

Apologies.

Now you’re learning.

 

[Lava-Man]

Not the same party. It's been documented over and over.

Link?

The Democratic Party, historically the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, remains the same unbroken entity since the 1820s.

Its voter base shifted, but the core persists, once enslaving physically, now enslaving through dependency policies and condescension.

They view race in transactional terms: as hive mind monoliths. The “party switch” is manufactured. Democrats never shed their lineage of control, just reframed it.

LBJ, after signing the Civil Rights Act, privately used slurs and reportedly said, “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for 200 years."

Clearly just a cynical vote grab. Its still the same party: today’s identity politics and figures like Biden (who praised Byrd and backed multiple policies hurting Black communities) show a pattern of exploiting race for power, just with better PR.

 

[willdup]

Link?

The Democratic Party, historically the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, remains the same unbroken entity since the 1820s.

Its voter base shifted, but the core persists, once enslaving physically, now enslaving through dependency policies and condescension.

They view race in transactional terms: as hive mind monoliths. The “party switch” is manufactured. Democrats never shed their lineage of control, just reframed it.

LBJ, after signing the Civil Rights Act, privately used slurs and reportedly said, “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for 200 years."

Clearly just a cynical vote grab. Its still the same party: today’s identity politics and figures like Biden (who praised Byrd and backed multiple policies hurting Black communities) show a pattern of exploiting race for power, just with better PR.

Everything changed when Nixon developed the Southern Strategy, which was over fifty years ago.

Lee Atwater felt so bad about his use of the Southern Strategy that he apologized for it as he was dying from a brain tumor.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er." By 1968 you can't say "ni**er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni**er, ni**er."

 

[Dillenger1914]

Link?

The Democratic Party, historically the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, remains the same unbroken entity since the 1820s.

Its voter base shifted, but the core persists, once enslaving physically, now enslaving through dependency policies and condescension.

They view race in transactional terms: as hive mind monoliths. The “party switch” is manufactured. Democrats never shed their lineage of control, just reframed it.

LBJ, after signing the Civil Rights Act, privately used slurs and reportedly said, “I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for 200 years."

Clearly just a cynical vote grab. Its still the same party: today’s identity politics and figures like Biden (who praised Byrd and backed multiple policies hurting Black communities) show a pattern of exploiting race for power, just with better

Follow

Now you’re learning.

Boy, you love jumping in.

 

[DTwnDawg]

You know what, you are right.

While the history of white people demeaning and belittling adult black males by referring to them as “boy” is a few hundred years old, I don’t know what’s in your heart when you refer to Senator Booker as “boy”.

My bad. I retract my prior post.

Great. Because your pathetic race baiting remarks shows just how desperate you and your party really are..lol..but please keep wasting your time in here ..your post are always great for some daily laughs

See below…Taken from one of your famous “links” below…lol

But hey you keep attempting to turn it into whatever your false narrative is …lol

“Give that boy a trophy" can be used sarcastically to mean that someone is being given something or praised for something they didn't deserve, or to highlight an instance of over-praising or over-rewarding someone's performance or achievement.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Sarcastic/Slightly Mocking:
  The phrase suggests that the person receiving the "trophy" (or praise) isn't truly deserving of it, and it's being given out of a sense of obligation or to avoid conflict.
  
  
• Over-Praising:
  It can also be used to indicate that someone is being excessively praised or rewarded for something that is not particularly noteworthy.
  
  
• Example:
  "Give that boy a trophy for just showing up," might be used if someone is being praised for simply attending a meeting or event, rather than for any specific contribution
  
  What a race baiter you our..disgusting!
  
  
  

 

[Lava-Man]

Everything changed when Nixon developed the Southern Strategy, which was over fifty years ago.

Lee Atwater felt so bad about his use of the Southern Strategy that he apologized for it as he was dying from a brain tumor.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er." By 1968 you can't say "ni**er"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni**er, ni**er."

• The ‘party switch’ narrative oversimplifies the dynamics of what happened.
• Democrats didn’t flip to become anti-racist. Their voter base shifted, but their condescending oversight continued.
• Atwater admitted it evolved into coded economic appeals by Reagan, but that's hardly a defining realignment of a party’s core.
• Atwater’s own words: "Reagan doesn’t have to do that” show the strategy’s tactics were unsustainable.
• Voting patterns reflect cultural divides, not a 50-year-old playbook
• Per Thomas Sowell: “Welfare and identity politics create a new plantation. Dependency replaces chains, but the power dynamic endures.”
• LBJ’s quote about securing votes for “200 years” aligns with this. That's cynicism, not reform. (You can't use Nixon and ignore LBJ)
• Biden’s praise of Byrd, the 94 Crime Bill, Clinton's "Super predator" comments, etc. demonstrate the D's transactional view of race, which has been a consistent trait with better PR.
• Nixon’s "plan" doesn't erase that.
• It was a one-time Republican tactic, that doesn’t negate the D’s historical DNA or contined patterns of using race as a dividing wedge to secure power.
• The “switch” is a myth...they just got more subtle.

 

[DTwnDawg]

I think Mr. Moore is a man. At least respect him enough to call him that.

Ill pass…he’s a deranged idiot to me
And quit being a race baiter..sad and pathetic

You need to look up what a phrase means before you race bait on here …lol

Link

“Give that boy a trophy" can be used sarcastically to mean that someone is being given something or praised for something they didn't deserve, or to highlight an instance of over-praising or over-rewarding someone's performance or achievement.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Sarcastic/Slightly Mocking:
  The phrase suggests that the person receiving the "trophy" (or praise) isn't truly deserving of it, and it's being given out of a sense of obligation or to avoid conflict.
  
  
• Over-Praising:
  It can also be used to indicate that someone is being excessively praised or rewarded for something that is not particularly noteworthy.
  
  
• Example:
  "Give that boy a trophy for just showing up," might be used if someone is being praised for simply attending a meeting or event, rather than for any specific contribution or achievement.
  
  

 

[willdup]

• The ‘party switch’ narrative oversimplifies the dynamics of what happened.
• Democrats didn’t flip to become anti-racist. Their voter base shifted, but their condescending oversight continued.
• Atwater admitted it evolved into coded economic appeals by Reagan, but that's hardly a defining realignment of a party’s core.
• Atwater’s own words: "Reagan doesn’t have to do that” show the strategy’s tactics were unsustainable.
• Voting patterns reflect cultural divides, not a 50-year-old playbook
• Per Thomas Sowell: “Welfare and identity politics create a new plantation. Dependency replaces chains, but the power dynamic endures.”
• LBJ’s quote about securing votes for “200 years” aligns with this. That's cynicism, not reform. (You can't use Nixon and ignore LBJ)
• Biden’s praise of Byrd, the 94 Crime Bill, Clinton's "Super predator" comments, etc. demonstrate the D's transactional view of race, which has been a consistent trait with better PR.
• Nixon’s "plan" doesn't erase that.
• It was a one-time Republican tactic, that doesn’t negate the D’s historical DNA or contined patterns of using race as a dividing wedge to secure power.
• The “switch” is a myth...they just got more subtle.

Which AI do you use to generate these responses? Just curious. I find this response particularly unconvincing.

 

[ClydeDawg]

Not the same party. It's been documented over and over.

Just different plantations.

 

[Lava-Man]

Which AI do you use to generate these responses? Just curious. I find this response particularly unconvincing.

Google to find Sowell's quote that I remembered from another article I read on this subject previously, but had trouble locating.

However, I do note your complete lack of any rebuttal of the points I made or why it's so unconvincing.

I use bullets for organization because I loathe large paragraphs.

 

[willdup]

Google to find Sowell's quote that I remembered from another article I read on this subject previously, but had trouble locating.

However, I do note your complete lack of any rebuttal of the points I made or why it's so unconvincing.

I use bullets for organization because I loathe large paragraphs.

Regarding the "oversimplification" claim: no historical transition is simple, the evidence for party realignment on racial issues is overwhelming. We see this in voting records, policy positions, and geographic electoral patterns. The Democratic Party moved from being the party defending segregation to championing civil rights legislation, while the Republican Party shifted from its earlier civil rights advocacy to opposing such measures by the 1960s-70s. This wasn't merely rhetorical but reflected in concrete legislative actions.

On "condescending oversight": This characterization ignores the agency and leadership of Black Americans within the Democratic coalition. The rise of Black elected officials within the Democratic Party since the 1970s demonstrates this wasn't simply white politicians making decisions for Black communities. The Congressional Black Caucus, founded in 1971, has been a powerful force shaping Democratic policy, not passive recipients of "oversight."

On Atwater and coded language: The full Atwater quote actually reveals how racial appeals became more sophisticated rather than disappeared. When Atwater said "Reagan doesn't have to do that," he wasn't saying the strategy ended - he was explaining how it evolved into more abstract language that achieved the same political result. The strategy became more sustainable precisely because it became less explicitly racial.

On voting patterns: The dramatic shift in Black voting patterns (from roughly 40% Republican in 1960 to consistently 85-90% Democratic after 1964) occurred specifically during the civil rights era. This timing is not coincidental and directly contradicts the claim that this reflects merely "cultural divides" unrelated to racial politics.

On Sowell's "plantation" metaphor: This argument assumes bad faith without evidence. Many social welfare programs were designed with input from Black political leaders themselves. Moreover, it ignores that Republican alternatives often offered less economic opportunity and support for Black communities, which is why Black voters consistently reject them at the polls.

On LBJ's alleged quote: The quote attributed to LBJ about "having those n-words voting Democratic for 200 years" has no primary source documentation and first appeared in a book decades after his death. By contrast, we have documented evidence of the Nixon campaign's Southern Strategy from multiple contemporaneous sources, including campaign documents and recorded conversations.

On Biden/Clinton examples:
Cherry-picking problematic statements while ignoring broader policy contexts creates a misleading picture. The 1994 Crime Bill, for instance, had significant support from the Congressional Black Caucus at the time. Meanwhile, this argument ignores the Republican Party's "law and order" rhetoric and policies that disproportionately harmed Black communities.

On "historical DNA": Political parties are not static entities with unchanging "DNA." They are coalitions that evolve over time. The Democratic Party that once defended slavery and segregation lost those voters and politicians to the Republican Party during the civil rights era. The continuity is not in the party label but in the coalition of voters and their policy preferences.

On the "one-time Republican tactic": The Southern Strategy was not a brief tactical move but a multi-decade realignment. From Nixon through Reagan and beyond, Republican campaigns made appeals to white racial anxieties. As recently as 2005, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for the Southern Strategy, acknowledging its significance in shaping the modern Republican Party.

The overwhelming evidence from voting patterns, demographic shifts, policy positions, and statements from party leaders themselves supports the reality of this political realignment on racial issues, even if the process was more complex than a simple "switch."

 

[55dawg]

I will give you $20 per black man you walk up to in Savannah and call "boy". I would not be out more than $100 before you got your ass beat.

Kinda sad

 

[Lava-Man]

Regarding the "oversimplification" claim: no historical transition is simple, the evidence for party realignment on racial issues is overwhelming. We see this in voting records, policy positions, and geographic electoral patterns. The Democratic Party moved from being the party defending segregation to championing civil rights legislation, while the Republican Party shifted from its earlier civil rights advocacy to opposing such measures by the 1960s-70s. This wasn't merely rhetorical but reflected in concrete legislative actions.

On "condescending oversight": This characterization ignores the agency and leadership of Black Americans within the Democratic coalition. The rise of Black elected officials within the Democratic Party since the 1970s demonstrates this wasn't simply white politicians making decisions for Black communities. The Congressional Black Caucus, founded in 1971, has been a powerful force shaping Democratic policy, not passive recipients of "oversight."

On Atwater and coded language: The full Atwater quote actually reveals how racial appeals became more sophisticated rather than disappeared. When Atwater said "Reagan doesn't have to do that," he wasn't saying the strategy ended - he was explaining how it evolved into more abstract language that achieved the same political result. The strategy became more sustainable precisely because it became less explicitly racial.

On voting patterns: The dramatic shift in Black voting patterns (from roughly 40% Republican in 1960 to consistently 85-90% Democratic after 1964) occurred specifically during the civil rights era. This timing is not coincidental and directly contradicts the claim that this reflects merely "cultural divides" unrelated to racial politics.

On Sowell's "plantation" metaphor: This argument assumes bad faith without evidence. Many social welfare programs were designed with input from Black political leaders themselves. Moreover, it ignores that Republican alternatives often offered less economic opportunity and support for Black communities, which is why Black voters consistently reject them at the polls.

On LBJ's alleged quote: The quote attributed to LBJ about "having those n-words voting Democratic for 200 years" has no primary source documentation and first appeared in a book decades after his death. By contrast, we have documented evidence of the Nixon campaign's Southern Strategy from multiple contemporaneous sources, including campaign documents and recorded conversations.

On Biden/Clinton examples:
Cherry-picking problematic statements while ignoring broader policy contexts creates a misleading picture. The 1994 Crime Bill, for instance, had significant support from the Congressional Black Caucus at the time. Meanwhile, this argument ignores the Republican Party's "law and order" rhetoric and policies that disproportionately harmed Black communities.

On "historical DNA": Political parties are not static entities with unchanging "DNA." They are coalitions that evolve over time. The Democratic Party that once defended slavery and segregation lost those voters and politicians to the Republican Party during the civil rights era. The continuity is not in the party label but in the coalition of voters and their policy preferences.

On the "one-time Republican tactic": The Southern Strateg was not a brief tactical move but a multi-decade realignment. From Nixon through Reagan and beyond, Republican campaigns made appeals to white racial anxieties. As recently as 2005, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for the Southern Strategy, acknowledging its significance in shaping the modern Republican Party.

The overwhelming evidence from voting patterns, demographic shifts, policy positions, and statements from party leaders themselves supports the reality of this political realignment on racial issues, even if the process was more complex than a simple "switch."

• Voting records show many Dems still opposed civil rights while some Republicans supported it too. Regional loyalty was a much more important factor and not some clear racial flip. Your post’s “overwhelming evidence” ignores this angle. It oversimplifies the issue.
• Sure, the Congressional Black Caucus exists. But claiming they shaped policy is a leap. White Dems held power. They often sidelined Black voices. Your post assumes influence means control. That doesn’t hold up.
• Atwater’s quote proves nothing. He was hyping Reagan’s style. Coded language was already a thing. It wasn’t some new trick he invented. Your post misreads this as a grand evolution. It’s just politics.
• Economic handouts pulled votes starting in '64. City political machines did too. Race wasn’t the sole driver. Your post focuses only on civil rights. It ignores the other factors.
• Sowell’s “plantation” stings for a reason. Black leaders liking welfare doesn’t prove anything. It could still be a dependency trap. The GOP at least talked self-reliance. You assume good intentions. There is no evidence for that.
• Tapes and memos show tactics. They don’t show a coherent plot. Dems played similar games. They just didn’t get a catchy label. You also ignore ample evidence of past LBJ racism.
• Biden and Clinton get excused with “context”? That’s laughable. The Crime Bill hammered Black communities. Caucus support doesn’t change that. GOP “law and order” was harsh. But Dems wrote the laws that stuck. Your post’s cherry-picking defense flops. It can’t erase outcomes with intent.
• Parties evolve, fine. But saying Dems “lost segregationists” to the GOP is ignorant and self-serving. Racist voters lingered in both camps. Coalitions shifted. They didn’t swap. Basic voter data shows it’s not that simple.
• Southern Strategy a long term shift? Sounds dramatic. But its comjecture. Mehlman’s 2005 apology was a PR stunt. Republicans also won the South with jobs. Faith played a role too. It wasn’t just race. Your post inflates this into a grand arc. It’s only one piece of the puzzle.

Your post’s “overwhelming evidence” is shaky. It’s built on selective facts. It ignores counterpoints. It assumes a slick “realignment” based on some grand flip where past beliefs magically take a 180 instead of the much more likely scenario based on thousands of years of human history: Recognizing and executing and attempt to acquire political power.