It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Democrats threatening Democrats into going to the polls

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

But But Obama and the Democrats love the Patriot Act.

There's more Democrats in favor of it than Republicans.


edit on Nov-02-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 09:47 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

How about some proof of that, Xuenchen?

Any proof?

Because I can supply quotes from Mr. Obama and a host of Democrats that would put the lie to your claim.

So, you first.

Prove it.

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:31 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Thanks for sharing your opinion Corruption.

Why don't YOU fact check my claims? It's all too easy for me to do it.

Compare and contrast the two parties in terms of their confidence in and support of science.

Compare and contrast the two parties in terms of their positions on civil rights, marriage equality, etc.

Show how business and the American public were so much better off before we had modern regulatory efforts in place; why don't you start with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and explain how you'd like to purchase half-rotten meat products.

Prove it. Put the facts where your mouth is.

I did. I fact checked all of your claims and it came up "Idealistic dreamer" A person who imagines all the best possible qualities in something and uses emotional transference to birth it into their reality matrix.

This does not describe all left leaning types, but it fits you and a few others perfectly. I also never said this is a bad thing, or something to cast you in a bad way. You have to live your life and pursue that which you want for yourself, and it appears you have found what works for you.

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 10:37 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

How about some proof of that, Xuenchen?

Any proof?

Because I can supply quotes from Mr. Obama and a host of Democrats that would put the lie to your claim.

So, you first.

Prove it.

Um, quotes from Obama? I looked that up and all of his quotes have been proven lies. I would outline it for you, but that has been shown to everyone how all of his quotes are lies, and shown so much that even most of his fans have admitted how often he lies, and they just then use the excuse that "but all politicians lie" as if that makes it okay..

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:08 PM
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Right so you "looked it up," and the results were just exactly what you were expecting to find?

Amazing. I guess those folks that talk about "confirmation bias" know what they're talking about, huh.

I gave you an opportunity to prove your point with evidence. You came back with more of your ridiculous opinion.

So let me tell you something about you that you apparently don't know.

You've absorbed a few catch phrases from the right-wing echo chamber, and you assign those to whomever you please without regard to what they actually think. You think you're drawing attention to yourself by seeming confident and sure of your vapid repetitious BS, but really your post only sounds ridiculous.

And then, you have the audacity to try to sound magnanimous by "allowing me to have my opinion."

More BS.

Why don't you actually bring some of your evidence, remember, when you quote-unquote looked it up? Why don't you treat the matter like an adult would and back your claims?

Why? Because you can't. You're just parroting something you heard somewhere.

Just like your next blather. Obama's a liar. Of course. Everything the man has ever said is a lie, right?

I bet you believe he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, too right? You are certain that he's gay and that Mrs. Obama had a sex change? Right? Have I missed any silly fallacious beliefs? Oh, he's responsible for the world outbreak of Ebola, well, he and George Soros and Bill Gates, right?

I mean, if you're going to parrot a few of the wingnut lines you might as well go for the whole tamale, eh?

edit on 23Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:09:50 -060014p1120141166 by Gryphon66 because: NOted

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:24 PM
Here is a list of those who voted against the Patriot act in 2001 the true heros.

Democratic Caucus:

Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Thomas Barrett (WI-05)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
David Bonior (MI-10)
Rick Boucher (VA-09)
Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Mike Capuano (MA-08)
Eva Clayton (NC-01)
John Conyers (MI-14)
William Coyne (PA-14)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
John Dingell (MI-16)
Sam Farr (CA-17)
Bob Filner (CA-50)
Barney Frank (MA-04)
Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Mike Honda (CA-15)
Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Stephanie Jones (OH-11)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Barbara Lee (CA-09)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
James McGovern (MA-03)
Cynthia McKinney (GA-04)
Carrie Meek (FL-17)
George Miller (CA-07)
Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Allan Mollohan (WV-01)
Jerry Nadler (NY-08)
James Oberstar (MN-08)
David Obey (WI-07)
John Olver (MA-01)
Major Owens (NY-11)
Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Lynn Rivers (MI-13)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Martin Sabo (MN-05)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Mark Udall (CO-02)
Tom Udall (NM-03)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Diane Watson (CA-32)
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
David Wu (OR-01)


Bob Ney (OH-18)
Butch Otter (ID-01)
Ron Paul (TX-14)

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001.

In 2005 those opposed it were

NAYs ---10
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

I couldn't find the House vote. With a list of names that had a Dor R in front of it but it said 13 republicans, 124 democrats and 1 Independent voted against it. Here is the link

Those opposed it in 2011
NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Wyden (D-OR)


Gary L. Ackerman D NY-5
Justin Amash R MI-3
Tammy Baldwin D WI-2
Roscoe G. Bartlett R MD-6
Karen Bass D CA-33
Rob Bishop R UT-1
Earl Blumenauer D OR-3
Robert A. Brady D PA-1
Bruce Braley D IA-1
Paul Broun R GA-10
John Campbell R CA-48
Lois Capps D CA-23
Michael E. Capuano D MA-8
Russ Carnahan D MO-3
André Carson D IN-7
Jason Chaffetz R UT-3
Judy Chu D CA-32
David Cicilline D RI-1
Hansen Clarke D MI-13
Yvette D. Clarke D NY-11
William Lacy Clay D MO-1
Emanuel Cleaver II D MO-5
James E. Clyburn D SC-6
Steve Cohen D TN-9
Gerald E. Connolly D VA-11
Jerry F. Costello D IL-12
Joe Courtney D CT-2
Joseph Crowley D NY-7
Elijah E. Cummings D MD-7
Danny K. Davis D IL-7
Peter A. DeFazio D OR-4
Diana DeGette D CO-1
Rosa DeLauro D CT-3
Lloyd Doggett D TX-25
Mike Doyle D PA-14
Jeffrey Duncan R SC-3
John J. Duncan Jr. R TN-2
Donna Edwards D MD-4
Keith Ellison D MN-5
Eliot L. Engel D NY-17
Anna G. Eshoo D CA-14
Sam Farr D CA-17
Chaka Fattah D PA-2
Michael G. Fitzpatrick R PA-8
Barney Frank D MA-4
Marcia L. Fudge D OH-11
John Garamendi D CA-10
Chris Gibson R NY-20
Charlie Gonzalez D TX-20
Tom Graves R GA-9
Al Green D TX-9
Morgan Griffith R VA-9
Raúl M. Grijalva D AZ-7
Luis V. Gutierrez D IL-4
Colleen Hanabusa D HI-1
Richard Hanna R NY-24
Andy Harris R MD-1
Alcee L. Hastings D FL-23
Martin Heinrich D NM-1
Jaime Herrera Beutler R WA-3
Jim Himes D CT-4
Maurice D. Hinchey D NY-22
Mazie K. Hirono D HI-2
Rush Holt D NJ-12
Michael M. Honda D CA-15
Jay Inslee D WA-1
Sheila Jackson-Lee D TX-18
Hank Johnson D GA-4
Timothy V. Johnson R IL-15
Walter B. Jones R NC-3
Marcy Kaptur D OH-9
Dale E. Kildee D MI-5
Dennis J. Kucinich D OH-10
Raul Labrador R ID-1
Rick Larsen D WA-2
John B. Larson D CT-1
Barbara Lee D CA-9
John Lewis D GA-5
Dave Loebsack D IA-2
Zoe Lofgren D CA-16
Ben Ray Lujan D NM-3
Stephen F. Lynch D MA-9
Connie Mack R FL-14
Carolyn B. Maloney D NY-14
Donald Manzullo R IL-16
Edward J. Markey D MA-7
Doris Matsui D CA-5
Tom McClintock R CA-4
Betty McCollum D MN-4
Jim McDermott D WA-7
Jim McGovern D MA-3
Jerry McNerney D CA-11
Gregory W. Meeks D NY-6
Michael H. Michaud D ME-2
Gwen Moore D WI-4
James P. Moran D VA-8
Christopher S. Murphy D CT-5
Jerrold Nadler D NY-8
Grace F. Napolitano D CA-38
Richard E. Neal D MA-2
Frank Pallone D NJ-6
Ed Pastor D AZ-4
Ron Paul R TX-14
Donald M. Payne D NJ-10
Nancy Pelosi D CA-8
Ed Perlmutter D CO-7
Chellie Pingree D ME-1
Jared Polis D CO-2
Bill Posey R FL-15
David E. Price D NC-4
Charles B. Rangel D NY-15
Denny Rehberg R MT-1
Laura Richardson D CA-37
Cedric Richmond D LA-2
Phil Roe R TN-1
Dana Rohrabacher R CA-46
Todd Rokita R IN-4
Lucille Roybal-Allard D CA-34
Bobby L. Rush D IL-1
Tim Ryan D OH-17
Linda T. Sanchez D CA-39
John Sarbanes D MD-3
Jan Schakowsky D IL-9
Kurt Schrader D OR-5
Robert C. Scott D VA-3
José E. Serrano D NY-16
Brad Sherman D CA-27
Louise M. Slaughter D NY-28
Jackie Speier D CA-12
Pete Stark D CA-13
Betty Sutton D OH-13
Bennie Thompson D MS-2
Mike Thompson D CA-1
John F. Tierney D MA-6
Scott Tipton R CO-3
Paul Tonko D NY-21
Edolphus Towns D NY-10
Chris Van Hollen D MD-8
Nydia M. Velázquez D NY-12
Peter J. Visclosky D IN-1
Tim Walz D MN-1
Maxine Waters D CA-35
Melvin Watt D NC-12
Henry A. Waxman D CA-30
Anthony Weiner D NY-9
Peter Welch D VT-1
Allen West R FL-22
Frederica Wilson D FL-17
Rob Woodall R GA-7
Lynn Woolsey D CA-6
David Wu D OR-1
John Yarmuth D KY-3
Don Young R AK-1

Anyway there are the elected who have opposed the Patriot act.

I don't know how xuenchen got the idea that more democrats like the patriot act than republicans because the record shows it is just the opposite by a wide margin. Maybe he just got the words Democrat and republican mixed up which would make it an "HONEST" mistake.
edit on 2-11-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:41 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

All rubbish because Obama signed off on it with ink in the pen.

Therefore, most if not all Democrats support it by default (not just politicians either)

It's the collective hive mentality now.

Obama supporters are in the trance and caught on the tractor beam of the Obama Stockholm Syndrome.

They of course, will have you believe otherwise.

posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 11:53 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

So let me get this straight.

It doesn't matter that you've been shown clear evidence to the contrary, that Democrats have and did oppose the Patriot Act in 2001, 2006, 2011 ... and Republicans supported it virtually 100%

You're still going to claim that because YOU believe "all Democrats support it by default" and "it's the collective hive mentality" and you're going to ramble on about what you think about Obama and then assign that to ... whomever you're talking about ... and then imply that despite what someone says about their own beliefs, YOU still know better because "they will have you believe otherwise"???

That's some really deep delusion going on there in your post if you're not just doing your usual baiting and trolling, Xuenchen.
edit on 0Mon, 03 Nov 2014 00:09:23 -060014p1220141166 by Gryphon66 because: Added one quotation mark

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:40 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Grimpach that was from 2001. Democrats voted against it to make themselves look they they aren't spying on Americans....then guess who gets elected and signs the extension? Guess who voted to extend?
Joe Biden himself claimed to have authored the core of the Patriot Act. There were 54 Democrats in the House who voted for the Extension. 31 Republicans voted against. So while we could say that Republicans tended to support it(who would have guessed O would sign that thing) you cannot say that only GOP supported it. Oh yah and the bill came up directly after the O WH went on the raid to kill Osama. You know the one where they had to go get O off the golf course?
The Democrats like to pretend they are against war too, and guess what.....

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 08:44 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Republicans supported it virtually 100%

And you call me dishonest
Look, I can see how you came up with your statement that Dems were against and Repubs for, but you are using that Common Core math again where 54 Democrats suddenly turned into Republicans and 31 Republicans suddenly became Democrat.......that was just the House I didn't even check the Senate.
And your beloved leader SIGNED it, or he would have had to veto right after his WH went on that raid and killed Osama and threw his body overboard so no one could see the evidence.
Now compare that to the Affordable Care Act where only 2 GOP voted for it.... Guess who owns that bill?
The two GOP were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both very Democrat leaning anyway.

edit on 3-11-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:05 AM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You can try to spin it any way you want, Third; here are the facts --

The only party whose members that stood against the original Patriot Act (2001) was the Democratic party.

The opposition thereafter, in 2006 and 2011, were overwhelmingly members of the Democratic party.

You can dispute those facts, but you're incorrect. Either you're mistaken, or you're intentionally trying to mislead.

I still fully stand by my comment "virtually 100%" of Republicans supported the Patriot Act in 2001, 2006 and 2011. In fact, as cited earlier, the Republicans made it clear that there was no negotiation on the issue, and Obama and the Democratic leadership, still arguably trying in 2011 to find a way to "meet the right in the middle," agreed to compromise with the Republicans ...

... and of course, we always know how that comes out. For the Republicans, there is only one way: theirs.

Stop trying to muddy the water with ACA and anything else you can think of; as you keep saying, stay on topic ...

... or is that only when you have the facts nail you down so tightly there's nowhere left to wiggle?

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:16 AM
I want to try to take my own advice and get this thread back on track.

The OP asserted that Democrats had sent out letters threatening and/or intimidating other Democrats to vote on Tuesday.

Further, there was the implication (which was ginned up by Rush Limbaugh last and made its way down the Echo Chamber) that this was something that had never been done before and certainly not by Republicans.

Of course, the reality as demonstrated here was that the letter itself was merely a typical "Get Out the Vote" letter which has been used by BOTH parties now for several years. The silly accusations that Democrats were trying to bully other Democrats into voting was proven quite conclusively to be ... silly.


Since this election tomorrow is basically in the bag at this point (and by that I mean that folks have already made up their mind and are either voting party or person) for whoever wins ... I thought it might be interesting to see, particularly from our friends on the Right, in terms of going forward, whether you agree or disagree with these tactics, now that it's clear that the Republicans do the exact same thing.

Or would you like to see closer regulation and scrutiny of just how and when political parties can attempt to encourage/influence their members?

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:25 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

That's some really deep delusion going on there in your post if you're not just doing your usual baiting and trolling, Xuenchen.

I have been following the thread along.

Thank you for ending your tirades yesterday and leaving the thread.

You are as entrenched in your ideas as Xuenchen is and as I am. I saw where you wrote that

Republicans are bad people.
on my thread. Then why stay on the thread? It simply raised your blood pressure and you have not changed a single person's mind.

When you openly say "I think you are bad no matter what." then no constructive dialog can continue and everything you say is tainted with open hatred, which taints all further dialog.

This mindset of all Republicans are bad people is as harmful to the country and leading to civil war as you claim all Republicans are.

When someone really tries to rile me up, I now normally refuse to respond because I know it will only lead to the kind of escalation that has happened between you and others on this thread.

If you really feel all Republicans are bad, then stop getting into threads where you will get your blood pressure so high that you start calling people trolls and baiters, because that is what your replies look like when you get out of control with your rhetoric.

My OP was taken directly from the headlines. You don't agree with the article from the NY Post, fine, that is ok, but when you declare open hatred for anyone who disagrees with you that is not ok.

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:42 AM
a reply to: grandmakdw

I wasn't aware that we "owned" threads here at ATS ... in fact, I'm fairly sure that part of the T&C states quite clearly that the site owners own all content that is not separately copyrighted.

So, if you feel like I've gone unreasonably off-topic in "your" thread, you have a clear option to report my posts.

I think that's the extent of your "ownership" as it were, although if I'm mistaken on that point I'm sure the mods will correct me.

As far as my "tirades" ... I was only responding to other members here. I strive to include primarily facts in my posts, backed up by citations, peppered here and there, certainly with my personal opinion on the topic under discussion.

As far as my "delusion" as comparable to what Xuenchen posted, repeatedly with NO backup, I have never said that all Republicans do this or that they're part of a hive mentality, or that they are all liars and so it doesn't matter what individual members say who post here either as independents or Democrats ... so your comparison is completely flawed.

Thank you for your "care and concern" for my health, but I'll continue to post where I wish within the constraints of the ATS T&C. If I'm out of line the site administration will point that out to me, not you.

As to your article, the facts are clear. It was a prejudiced piece and you presented it in a biased manner. You chose to do that. It's not a matter, as has been clearly seen here in "your" thread, of simply not agreeing with the article, but a matter of the facts that I and other posters here have presented which, by the way, proved conclusively that your source was in error.

Please cite where I declared "open hatred for anyone who disagrees with me." If you can find that in my words, I will vacate "your" current thread and all future threads of "yours."

If not, and if you have any honor at all, you'll offer a simple apology for misrepresenting my claims and words.
edit on 10Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:43:49 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: Added an important "t"

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 10:57 AM
a reply to: beezzer

Oh there is.

Have you saw the Democratic campaign posters urging blacks to go vote, and you know they mean vote Democrat

lest we will see more "Michael Browns'?

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:02 AM
Well wouldn't this be in true-Democrat fashion?

edit on 3-11-2014 by StarGazer77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:06 AM

originally posted by: beezzer
A double post.

Kind of like a Chicago "vote".

oh profound!....ohhh..."code phrase",Chicago vote...wink,wink...scary black people voting!!!....not electing white people, well that has to the secret message

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: StarGazer77

You mean when Democrats were far right and Republicans left? Yeah... I can see some co-opted TPers/Republicans doing just that, considering those are the Parties the KKK belong to these days. As it is they're already stealing voter registrations and early votes from primarily minority polling places...

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:51 AM
a reply to: StarGazer77

Might want to do a little work on the "Dixiecrats" ... if you're interested in the facts, that is.

(Material quotes below taken from "Dixiecrat" from Wikipedia Link to Source except as otherwise noted.)

By the 1870s the South was heavily Democratic in national and presidential elections, apart from pockets of Republican strength. It was the "Solid South". The social system was based on Jim Crow, a combination of legal and informal segregation that made blacks second-class citizens with little or no political power anywhere in the South.

In the 1930s, the New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a realignment occurred. Much of the Democratic Party in the South shifted towards economic intervention. Civil rights for blacks was not on the New Deal agenda, as Southerners controlled the key positions of power in Congress. Jim Crow was indirectly challenged as two million blacks served in the military during World War II, receiving equal pay in segregated units, and equally entitled to veterans' benefits. The Republican Party, nominating Governor of New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.

So, in reality, opposition to Civil Rights was clearly a geographic phenomenon, rather than purely based on party.

When Roosevelt died, the new president Harry Truman established a highly visible President's Committee on Civil Rights and ordered an end to discrimination in the military in 1948. Additionally, the Democratic National Convention in 1948 adopted a plank proposed by Northern liberals led by Hubert Humphrey calling for civil rights; 35 southern delegates walked out. The move was on to remove Truman's name from the ballot in the South. This required a new party, which the Southern defectors chose to name the States' Rights Democratic Party, with its own nominee: Governor of South Carolina J. Strom Thurmond.

So, efforts to end discrimination were met with a en masse departure of Southerners who then founded their own party in the 1948 election? And where have I heard that name Strom Thurmond before ...

Here's the platform of the "States Rights Democratic Party" that those 35 members attempted to form ... see if any of it sounds familiar in terms of today's partisan rhetoric ...

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

Now, who does that sound like, what modern party does those bolded parts (mine obviously) remind you of almost word for word?

Just to dispel any questions of similarity with their modern counterparts, here's some more of the States Rights Platform ...

We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominiously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.

After the Dixiecrats subsided, the Republican Party started implementing what was called 'The Southern Strategy' (Link to Source):

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater in the late 1960s. The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: Kali74

Democrats were never far right, and Republicans were never far left...

Conservative means you hold a strict/narrow interpretation of the constitution, where liberals hold a broad interpretation. Republicans wanted to 'conserve' the doctrine, that stated all men were created equal and that no one shall have their right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness deprived of them. Liberals took 'liberty' in perverting it to mean that they should have the right to pursuit happiness at the expense of others...

slaves were not counted as citizens and could not defend themselves,and therefore had no say in their life..

and this is the same liberty that liberals take with Abortion.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in