Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tormunds_beard t1_jaeazll wrote

Oh look another Republican pretending that the southern strategy didn’t happen.

21

GeneralNathanJessup t1_jaehtca wrote

The Southern Strategy by Nixon in the 1970's forced the Democratic Party to give up on racism.

Sadly, this means FDR and Kennedy were racists, but we can't fight history.

Thankfully progressive Southern States like Alabama continued to have Democratic Governors as late as 2003, which means they only recently became racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman

And Arkansas only became racist in 2015 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Beebe

And Tennessee only became racist in 2011- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen

And Georgia only became racist in in 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Barnes

And Mississippi only became racist in 2004 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Musgrove

And Texas only became racist in 2006 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards

And Louisiana has been cured of racism it seems, because they have a Democratic governor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bel_Edwards

Florida turned to the dark side in 1999 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_MacKay

Kentucky has been cured of racism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear

South Carolina became racist in 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hodges

North Carolina is free of racism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cooper

Virginia waited until 2022 to become racist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cooper

History is a stubborn thing, isn't it?

−13

burrito-disciple t1_jaeumds wrote

I feel like there was an attempt at a point being made here but I'm confused as to what that is.

Checks comment history

oooooh.

6

btross t1_jaf0pe3 wrote

>The Southern Strategy by Nixon in the 1970's forced the Democratic Party to give up on racism

I gotta say, that's the first time I've seen that twist on "the Republican party turned to racism to recapture southern votes"

6

GeneralNathanJessup t1_jaf3ojs wrote

You don't think Dems and GOP had a conference to agree to this, do you?

Of course not. It just happened. Because only one party can be racist at a time.

So before Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Dems were racist, after the Southern Strategy the GOP was racist. Nobody doubts this.

But it leads to some interesting conclusions, which I pointed out above.

Further anomalies are that George Wallace was both racist, and anti-racist, depending on the year. He was governor of Alabama until 1987.

−8

rondonjon t1_jae94a4 wrote

Yes, because renaming buildings and removing statues is the same as suppressing your political rivals and by extension democracy itself.

20

dip_tet t1_jae9je1 wrote

It’s the first time a Florida right winger has acknowledged slavery….they don’t want you to learn about it, though. Just praise jeebus or something

12

EvenSpoonier t1_jaeb6tq wrote

Um... What's the Florida Republican Party's position on amending the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate forced prison labor? Because I could see this bill backfiring really quickly depending on the answer.

12

1feralengineer t1_jaeaazb wrote

Thought experiment:

What would happen if they cancelled both parties?

5

Skripka t1_jaejnwx wrote

New ones would form overnight with different names under the same center right and far right platforms.

7

funkymonkeybunker t1_jaee2fr wrote

Candidates would have to run based on thier career track record, current credibility, personal values, credentials, and proof they are actually qualified for the job.

We cant have that now. You understand. Right?

0

Tonyhillzone t1_jaefog4 wrote

Shame it's not just the first five words of the title.

5

funkymonkeybunker t1_jaedpd7 wrote

Eliminate all parties... Make candidates run independently based in their career track record, current platform, values, and crediability.

3

Skripka t1_jaejuqa wrote

Ask states with unicameral legislatures if this actually happens. I’ll tell you from Nebraska, hell no it doesn’t.

1

Unfair_Builder4967 t1_jaee1pe wrote

Exactly. Then maybe they can actually represent their constituents not their party.

−1

SelectiveSanity t1_jael6mc wrote

>While it does not mention the Democratic party's name, it would direct the Florida Division of Elections to "immediately cancel the filings of a political party, to include its registration and approved status as a political party, if the party’s platform has previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude."

So....does this mean they're ok with politically disenfranchising any person or organization displaying a Tennessee Battle Flag?

1