Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hey Lou can we discuss the article you posted that you claimed "debunked" the PragerU video?
First of all for a guy who's go to move is question the source of the other person information, as Throbber pointed out, I congratulate you on citation of Doktor Zoom, as your source.
If the "switch" in party affiliation came about because "people’s perceptions of the parties stance on civil rights changed." When was that change? And how do you explain 75% of the black vote going to FDR in 1936? Was that on account of their perception that the Rats position on civil rights had changed?
-1 ·
Comments
It happened (the switch) because people’s perceptions of the parties stance on civil rights changed.
Blacks switched the party they supported for reasons that had nothing to do with their perceptions on where the parties stood on Civil Rights. Because in 1936 the Rat party was still the proud home of the Klan and Jim Crow. Hell the Congress couldn't even pass an anti-lynching law on account of Rat party opposition.
Also EVERYONE voted for FDR, it was the largest landslide in US history.
Again refuting your bullshit about civil rights having anything to do with a party switch.
Eisenhower was an outlier. A fucking war hero who appealed to Southern voters. Also one of the biggest political landslides ever. So what?
If proves you're full of shit that's what. If the parties stance on Civil Rights was the determinative issue on how black and white Southerns voted then why the fuck were white Southerners voting for Eisenhower in even greater number in 1956 than they did in 1952?
Blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Rat Presidents since 1936 even when the Republican who was running had a better record on Civil Rights. So again, I thank you for admitting your were talking out your ass when you claimed:
It happened (the switch) because people’s perceptions of the parties stance on civil rights changed.
Not what I said Lou, why do you have to lie? I challenged your claim that the "switch" in party affiliation came because of the "people’s perceptions of the parties stance on civil rights changed."
I said the change in party affiliation had far more to do with the Rat's party's drift to the left on issues like abortion and softer on Communism and hostility toward the military and toward religion.