Interesting story.

The parties flipped at one point, so in reality Republicans started the KKK. That is all irrelevant now, long ago history and is stupid to even bring up.

Opinions based on lies and fake fraud have no rights.

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.


Does this sound bad? Originally Posted by royamcr

No, it sounds good. Democrats should strive for this rather than Nazism.

lib·er·al·ism

1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.


Does this sound bad? Originally Posted by royamcr

And you seriously think that faithfully describes the Democrat Party? Are you kidding? The party whose youngest are questioning whether free speech, expressing different ideas than that of those presently in charge should be a thing of the past? The party that created cancel culture? The party that wants to do away with minority rights as expressed in the filibuster rule?

Come on man.

And no, I do not believe that the Republican party is pure as the driven snow in this regard but they are so far ahead of "this" Democrat party as to be saints for pete's sake.

The parties flipped at one point, so in reality Republicans started the KKK. That is all irrelevant now, long ago history and is stupid to even bring up.



Generally agree except when comparisons are useful in pointing out hypocrisy but this to should he relegated to resent events.


Opinions based on lies and fake fraud have no rights. Originally Posted by royamcr

Then you should start labeling the falsehoods you say on a regular basis as your opinion and not state them as facts as you often do.

HF - the Maoist DPSTs see their Lies as Truth.

given that - there is no middle ground - and armed conflict is inevitable - brought on by the maoist DPST party lust for untrammeled power and control over all America.

Their mantra - DPST Uber Alles!

The parties flipped at one point, so in reality Republicans started the KKK. That is all irrelevant now, long ago history and is stupid to even bring up.

Opinions based on lies and fake fraud have no rights. Originally Posted by royamcr

Completely debunked.

You are indeed one ignorant MF.

When faced with the sobering reality that Democrats supported slavery, started the Civil War when the abolitionist Republican Party won the Presidency, established the Ku Klux Klan to brutalize newly freed slaves and keep them from voting, opposed the Civil Rights Movement, modern-day liberals reflexively perpetuate rather pernicious myth--that the racist southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s became Republicans, leading to the so-called "switch" of the parties.

This is as ridiculous as it is easily debunked.


The Republican Party, of course, was founded in 1848 with the abolition of slavery as its core mission. Almost immediately after its second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the 1860 election, Democrat-controlled southern states seceded on the assumption that Lincoln would destroy their slave-based economies.

Once the Civil War ended, the newly freed slaves as expected flocked to the Republican Party, but Democrat control of the South from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Era was near total. In 1960, Democrats held every Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line. In the 13 states that made up the Confederacy a century earlier, Democrats held a staggering 117-8 advantage in the House of Representatives. The Democratic Party was so strong in the south that those 117 House members made up a full 41% of Democrats' 283-153 advantage in the Chamber.

Likewise, throughout the late 1950s and early 1960s, Democratic governors and overwhelmingly Democratic State Legislatures controlled the South, which steadfastly opposed the push for civil rights. In contrast, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, openly praised school desegregation in the Brown v. Board of Education decision and sent federalized Arkansas National Guard troops to Little Rock to protect nine black students after Democratic Governor Orval Faubus threatened to keep them out of a previously all-white high school.

Eisenhower was a phenomenally popular war hero when he was elected in 1952, and even though only one Republican had ever before won any southern states in the Electoral College (Herbert Hoover in 1928), Eisenhower began to make inroads for the Republican Party; winning Florida, Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee. In his landslide victory four years later, Eisenhower picked up Louisiana and Kentucky.

His personal appeal, though, didn't transcend the Democratic Party's hold on the South, and when he left office in 1961, that hold was arguably stronger than it had been in decades. As Southern Democrats clung to traditional segregation, though, the rest of the country was changing, and the push for civil rights had begun.

After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy--a strong proponent of civil rights--in late 1963, Southern Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson saw it as his mission to pass the Civil Rights Act as a tribute to Kennedy, who had first proposed the bill five months before he was killed. Democrats in the Senate, however, filibustered it.

In June of 1964, though, the bill came up again, and it passed...over the strenuous objections of Southern Democrats. 80% of House Republicans voted for the measure, compared with just 61% of Democrats, while 82% of Republicans in the Senate supported it, compared with 69% of Democrats.

Nearly all of the opposition was, naturally, in the South, which was still nearly unanimously Democratic and nearly unanimously resistant to the changing country. One thing that most assuredly didn't change, though, was party affiliation. A total of 21 Democrats in the Senate opposed the Civil Rights Act. Only one of them, "Dixiecrat" Strom Thurmond, ever became a Republican. The rest, including Al Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd--a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan--remained Democrats until the day they died.

Moreover, as those 20 lifelong Democrats retired, their Senate seats remained in Democrat hands for several decades afterwards. So too did the overwhelming majority of the House seats in the South until 1994, when a Republican wave election swept the GOP into control of the House for the first time since 1952. 1994 was also the first time Republicans ever held a majority of House seats in the South--a full 30 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

From there, Republicans gradually built their support in the South until two more wave elections in 2010 and 2014 gave them the overwhelming majorities they enjoy today.

If this was a sudden "switch" to the Republican Party for the old Democrat segregationists, it sure took a long time to happen.

The reality is that it didn't. After the 1964 election--the first after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the opportune time for racist Democrat voters to abandon the party in favor of Republicans--Democrats still held a 102-20 House majority in states that had once been part of the Confederacy. In 1960, remember, that advantage was 117-8. A pickup of 12 seats (half of them in Alabama) is hardly the massive shift one would expect if racist voters suddenly abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In fact, voting patterns in the South didn't really change all that much after the Civil Rights era. Democrats still dominated Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections for decades afterward. Alabama, for example, didn't elect a Republican governor until 1986. Mississippi didn't elect one until 1991. Georgia didn't elect one until 2002.

In the Senate, Republicans picked up four southern Senate seats in the 1960s and 1970s, while Democrats also picked up four. Democratic incumbents won routinely. If anything, those racist southern voters kept voting Democrat.

So how did this myth of a sudden "switch" get started?

It's rooted in an equally pernicious myth of the supposedly racist "Southern Strategy" of Richard Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign, which was accused of surreptitiously exploiting the innate racism of white southern voters.

Even before that, though, modern-day Democrats point to the 1964 presidential campaign of Republican Barry Goldwater, who refused to back the 1964 Civil Rights Act as proof that the GOP was actively courting racist southern voters. After all, they argue, Goldwater only won six states--his home state of Arizona and five states in the deep south. His "States' Rights" platform had to be code for a racist return to a segregated society, right?

Hardly. Goldwater was actually very supportive of civil rights for black Americans, voting for the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and even helping to found Arizona's chapter of the NAACP. His opposition to the 1964 Act was not at all rooted in racism, but rather in a belief that it allowed the federal government to infringe on state sovereignty.

The Lyndon B. Johnson campaign pounced on Goldwater's position and, during the height of the 1964 campaign, ran an ad titled "Confessions of a Republican," which rather nonsensically tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan (which, remember, was a Democratic organization).


The ad helped Johnson win the biggest landslide since 1920 and for the first time showed Democrats that accusing Republicans of being racist (even with absolutely no evidence to back this up) was a potent political weapon.

It would not be the last time they used it.

Four years later, facing declining popularity ratings and strong primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson decided not to run for re-election. As protests over the Vietnam War and race riots following the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. raged in America's streets, Republican Richard Nixon, the former Vice President, launched a campaign based on promises of "restoring law and order."

With the southerner Johnson out of the race and Minnesota native Hubert Humphrey as his opponent, Nixon saw an opportunity to win southern states that Goldwater had, not through racism, but through aggressive campaigning in an area of the country Republicans had previously written off.

Yet it didn't work. For all of Nixon's supposed appeals to southern racists (who still voted for Democrats in Senate and House races that same year), he lost almost all of the south to a Democrat--George Wallace, who ran on the American Independent ticket and won five states and 46 electoral votes.

It shouldn't have been surprising that Nixon ran competitively in the South, though. He carried 32 states and won 301 electoral votes. Four years later, he won every state except Massachusetts. Was it because of his racism? Had he laid the groundwork for racist appeals by Republicans for generations to come?

Of course not. The supposedly racist southern Republicans who voted for Nixon in 1972 also voted to re-elect Democrat Senators in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Republicans gained only eight southern seats in the House even though their presidential candidate won a record 520 electoral votes.

After Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974, Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the South en route to the presidency in 1976. Did Carter similarly run on racist themes? Or was he simply a stronger candidate? After Ronald Reagan carried the south in two landslides (including the biggest in U.S. history in 1984) and George H.W. Bush ran similarly strongly in 1988 while promising to be a "third Reagan term," Democrat Bill Clinton split the southern states with Bush in 1992 and with Bob Dole in 1996.

All the while, Democrats kept winning House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. Only in 2000 did southern voters return to unanimous Electoral College support for a Republican presidential candidate.

Since then, the south has voted reliably Republican (with the exception of Florida and North Carolina) in every presidential election as it has consistently voted for Republicans in Senate, House, and Governor's races.

Yet this shift was a gradual, decades-long transition and not a sudden "shift" in response to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Racism didn't turn the South Republican--if it did, then why did it take 30 years for those racist voters to finally give the GOP a majority of southern House seats? Why did it take racist voters in Georgia 38 years to finally vote for a Republican governor? And why did only one southern Democrat ever switch to the Republican Party?

The myth of the great Republican-Democrat "switch" summarily falters under the weight of actual historical analysis, and it becomes clear that prolonged electoral shifts combined with the phenomenal nationwide popularity of Republicans Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 were the real reason for the Republican strength in the south.

Reagan in particular introduced the entire nation to conservative policies that it found that it loved, sparking a new generation of Republican voters and politicians who still have tremendous influence today.

Racism had nothing to do with it. That is simply a Democratic myth.

And you seriously think that faithfully describes the Democrat Party? Are you kidding? The party whose youngest are questioning whether free speech, expressing different ideas than that of those presently in charge should be a thing of the past? The party that created cancel culture? The party that wants to do away with minority rights as expressed in the filibuster rule? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Also who lock up political dissidents and wish to have Stasi positioned at every business in this country shrieking ‘Papers Please!’ before you can enter.

Did the children who were brought up in Hitler Youth continue to believe in Nazism after the war because they had been indoctrinated when they were young?

The son of Hitler’s private secretary, Martin Adolf Bormann, was one of ten Nazi children, heavily indoctrinated pretty much since birth. He recalled the moment the radio announced that Hitler had committed suicide in Berlin, and that “all was now lost”.

Young Bormann was in the Hitler Jugend at the time, a teenager, surrounded by other teenagers, each of them indoctrinated to a ridiculous degree. Several of the boys looked at each other. Intensely. Sadly. Then walked out of the door of their barracks, onto the field, and shot themselves through the temple or the roof of their mouths.

To kill oneself was consider the highest honor, following their ‘great leader’, a bit of a German bushido warrior thing. Soldiers and officers, even young kids, killed themselves by the thousands out of loyalty to Hitler and the Third Reich…

Martin junior and his best friend looked at each other. Considered, for a brief moment, to kill themselves as well, as their friends had just done. Then they shook their heads, threw their guns, and walked out of the building together. They decided to live.

Bormann decided not only to live, that day, but to unlearn his indoctrination, step by step. He eventually became a Catholic priest and a fervent anti-fascist. So did many other people who grew up during Nazi-Germany — older Germans born during the 1930s and 1940s are among the most fiercely anti-Nazi people you can find, anywhere. You may have read about the madness; they lived through it. Originally Posted by royamcr

I'm trying to understand why you started this thread.

Are you trying to reassure us that if we allow our kids to be indoctrinated by the Loony Left's Critical Race Theory, they can still unlearn all of that false, poisonous propaganda years from now, after it precipitates a domestic civil war on a scale akin to WW2?

Gee, thanks... that's sounds soooo reassuring!

The parties flipped at one point, so in reality Republicans started the KKK. That is all irrelevant now, long ago history and is stupid to even bring up. Originally Posted by royamcr

Wow. Just wow.

You're a real intellectual, aintcha? A fervent, insatiable student of history, no doubt.

I can tell when I'm outmatched.

I'm curious about one thing, royamcr... did you ever work as an editor for Pravda or Izvestia? Because you seem to excel at not just erasing history, but turning it completely upside down. Everyone knows Stalin was a benevolent ruler who never harmed a soul (cough, cough).

So you would have us believe the party that freed the slaves "started the KKK", huh? What do we do with those pesky folks who challenge this ridiculous falsehood? Should we load them onto cattle cars and ship them off to DNC re-education camps, where they can be taught to loathe Republicans so intensely they will erase the historical record?

Question - since you think everything that happened prior to 1970 (or thereabouts) is "irrelevant long ago history", does this mean Germans can feel free to forget and deny Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust? Should they be allowed to revive the Hitler Jugend and start the cycle all over again? After all, WW2 is long ago history which you deem irrelevant today.

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.


Does this sound bad? Originally Posted by royamcr

You didn't answer the question...indoctrinated into that damaging garbage or just something you highly fancy.
Your deflection ain't working
Isn't the term now "progressive" since liberalism needed to be sanitized?? Do tell

Completely debunked.

You are indeed one ignorant MF. Originally Posted by texassapper

roy needed a major debunking and getting his downsides bitched slapped over the flipping myth that he believes.



roy, however is right on one thing. the democrats indeed have flipped. democrat liberalism is not the same thing as republican liberalism. those are different animals. dems have flipped off liberalism in favor of marxism/fascism. that is where they are going.



the republicans not so much. they do have a mix of libs, moderates and conservatives.

Yea "don't bring up History " what could and does go wrong

What started the KKK is ancient history and really has nothing to do with today.

Ever since LBJ struck down Jim Crow laws, KKK is near 100% Republican. That's facts for the last 60 years or so. Less than 20% of those living today even remember pre Jim Crow, probably closer to 10% because 20% of the population is over 60 and really would have to be 80+ years old to even know anything about or experienced the times.

While many KKK members were Democrats, the Klan was not started by the Democratic Party.

For several years the claim that the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has been making rounds on social media. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones, and James Crowe in Pulaski, Tennessee. The group was originally a social fraternity but quickly became a violent white supremacist group.

Experts agree that there exists a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK, as many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK's first grand wizard, and he also spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book 'Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK,' it's misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan. Therefore, while some Democrats supported the KKK, there's no evidence the Democratic Party founded the group.


From Logically

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources.

Overall, we rate Logically Least Biased based on low biased fact-checking and commentary. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of claims.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United Kingdom (35/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

I don't think the modern KKK is democrat or republican.

They're like a fringe group that have unorthodox beliefs.

The Aryan brotherhood is basically a prison gang, or some shit like that.