OT Fans doing harm.

[Redstate12]

To be crystal clear. I'm not claiming the A&M fans are in some way racist. Not implying that they are doing something evil. My point is only that in this climate those optics look terrible. That's all. The A&M fans are peaceful and don't seem to be saying anything negative at all. This just highlights the broader conversation that's going on nationally. Is kneeling for the flag the end of the world? Is choosing to respect it and honor it wrong? Two very different perspectives from people who are having two very different conversations at the end of the day.

 

[Empirical Cane]

Students are protesting that they should take it down because it represents a loser (former leader of a confederate regiment). After reading up on him, I actually disagree with them. No real documentation (that I could find) about him being racist, though a student writer mentioned he was strong into white supremacy with no sources. He is however, credited with with murdering union soldiers that have surrendered (mostly African-Americans).

But TAMU, I would assume, put his statue there, to represent how he (literally) saved the university from poor management and scandals. There are reports that the shiitty school even had no running water when he got there (lol). Not going to post a whole biography, but if you really look into it, dude did a lot for the school. He even advocated for, and allowed females into the university.

It's always complicated isn't it?

 

[Empirical Cane]

He's standing at attention, probably a vet. Just looks like the embodiment of bigotry doing it there. Isn't A&M a big ROTC school?

They are the largest AFROTC detachment. I think Embry-Riddle is second.

I could be wrong...been so long with so many miles.

 

[Rellyrell]

Recruits:

 

[Tad Footeball]

Very pointed reference.

Love it.

I actually completely forgot about that whole incident until I recently saw that a documentary about it was out on Amazon Prime. I just didn't know that my refreshed memory would so soon be able to be used for some tasteless humor.

 

[Redstate12]

This dudes got the racist stance down

Who said anything about racism?

 

[88]

Who said anything about racism?

I was clowning on the dude in the photo.

 

[Redstate12]

I was clowning on the dude in the photo.

My bad. I misunderstood I thought you were being sarcastic.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I'm not defending Jack, but you know it's not that simple. My parents started voting in 1944 and 1948, one a Republican and one a Democrat. It was that way until their deaths in 2000 and 2017. Did one become racist? Was the other a racist and suddenly stopped? Ever wonder why the only ones touting the party flip are the ones who benefited from it and use it as a pejorative to the other? There are a lot more reasons to choose a political party than this and it does no good to paint an entire party with a broad brush. That is the exact definition of prejudice.

Come on, nobody said one party was 100% racist. I just pointed out the actual and historic shift of the Democrats and Republicans between 1860 and 1968. It actually happened. Don't blame me for providing the factual support.

There is an entire town in North Florida, predominantly black, they all registered Republican after the Civil War and almost everyone who lives there (descendants of the original citizens) are still registered Republican, but they vote Democrat. During the election of 2000, Pat Buchanan tried to cite this town as an example of how "voter registration" and actual vote outcome can differ, though he had no idea of the history or context of this area in the Panhandle.

But it is a perfect example of how "party affiliation" in 1865 no longer translates to "political ideology" in 2020.

I don't give a **** if one's party affiliation is "Martian". The simple fact is that in the late 1800s, the Democrats were conservative and the Republicans were liberal. I don't care how your parents affiliated or voted. The flip happened.

And oversimplifiers like Jack are trying to act like the 2020 Democrats are the same as the 1860 Democrats. Which, of course, is false.

 

[JD08]

Come on, nobody said one party was 100% racist. I just pointed out the actual and historic shift of the Democrats and Republicans between 1860 and 1968. It actually happened. Don't blame me for providing the factual support.

There is an entire town in North Florida, predominantly black, they all registered Republican after the Civil War and almost everyone who lives there (descendants of the original citizens) are still registered Republican, but they vote Democrat. During the election of 2000, Pat Buchanan tried to cite this town as an example of how "voter registration" and actual vote outcome can differ, though he had no idea of the history or context of this area in the Panhandle.

But it is a perfect example of how "party affiliation" in 1865 no longer translates to "political ideology" in 2020.

I don't give a **** if one's party affiliation is "Martian". The simple fact is that in the late 1800s, the Democrats were conservative and the Republicans were liberal. I don't care how your parents affiliated or voted. The flip happened.

And oversimplifiers like Jack are trying to act like the 2020 Democrats are the same as the 1860 Democrats. Which, of course, is false.

Again, do you hear any Republicans saying there was a flip? Was fiscally conservative in 1948 any different than 2008?

 

[BS85]

I'm curious . . . you have no opinion on either side but you propose that "counter" protests are the ones rough on recruiting . . . How so?

Do you really need someone to explain it to you?

 

[AtlAtty]

Looking at that photo of the counter protestors just reminds me of how fat we have become as a country. I see some co-morbidity Covid deaths coming.

 

[Lokest]

For me, its the NO lives matter nihilist.

 

[Zbrod95]

I got a better question. Why’d all those libbies choose to go to a southern school if they had a problem with it? It’ll be like me going to Miami and being mad there’s a bunch of liberals everywhere...

 

[Zbrod95]

View attachment 119028

Who took my riot poster?

 

[Home Slice]

Who took my riot poster?

 

[Brains]

Stop it with your BS.

Originally, the party was called the "Democratic-Republican" party. Eventually, they dropped the second half of the name.

Democrats in 1860 were conservative. Republicans in 1860 were liberal (i.e., "Radical Republicans").

Over time, the identification of Democrats and Republicans as conservatives or liberals began to flip, due to events such as Teddy Roosevelt splitting from the Republicans and the northern Democrats beginning to pursue social justice issues, such as a 40 hour work week, no child labor, and workplace safety. The party switch gained a ton of momentum with Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat revolution in 1948 (where he single-handedly revived the use of the Confederate battle flag) and ended in 1968 with Nixon's "southern strategy".

It took 100 years, but by 1968, there had been a complete flip of "conservatives" from the Democrat party of 1860 to the Republican party of 1968, and a complete flip of radicals/liberals from the Republican party of 1860 to the Democrat party of 1968.

Just look at a time-lapse of how the southern states have voted for President over time. In 1944, Roosevelt carried the south. Starting in 1948, Democrats lost more and more southern states every 4 years until Nixon won them all in 1968. Since 1968, no Democrat running for President has carried the south unless he was a southerner (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton).

Facts.

This Map Shows How America Voted in Every Election Since 1824

Electoral maps reveal a lot about political change in the U.S.

time.com

I think the "party switch" narrative is an oversimplification, as it does not represent some sort of overnight change in party platforms, but is rather the result of the disintegration politically of the "Solid South" that previously was essentially a one-party state (outside of Texas and East Tennessee, and possibly Western North Carolina).

Simply put, whatever your political ideology in the South, you were a registered Democrat and voted Democrat and ran Democrat if you wanted to win any political race. By virtue of the populace leaning more politically status-quo (I don't think it makes sense to call them "conservative" in today's sense of a political conservative), those types of candidates won. Change in party-line voting reflects more the change in the composition of Democratic Party candidates.

The election of 48 was perhaps a signal in national elections, but it didn't change anything about local or statewide Democratic Party dominance in the South. I once wrote a paper on the subject.

In the late 1960s, seeing political opportunity, some heretofore status-quo Southern Democrats switched party affiliation. No doubt, Nixon capitalized on this growing trend with appeals to the "law and order" crowd. But again, this isn't some major ideological leap by either political party. As Southern Dem politicians left the party in gradually greater numbers in the next 30 years, it was increasingly a more "social justice" party due to removal of the former candidates. More process of elimination than a conscious "switch."

Did the Republican Party receive an injection of more "social conservatism" as a result? Sure, but I'd argue the Democratic Party changed far more, by virtue of being left without its more old school wing. The Republicans had fiscal conservatives already, and still do. The Democrats didn't so much "switch" as they gradually lost an entire faction of the party candidate pool.

Basically, I'm not saying what you've listed is wrong. Most of it is just factual electoral results. I just think the "party switch" narrative is better understood through gradual political defections by candidates (and eventually, voters), rather than some overnight revolution or a great ideological leap on the part of either party.

 

[bear]

I think this is a relevant post. Why would one of our inner city kids go to bama, Nebraska, Texas AM, Florida, Oklahoma etc. these Places are 80 years back in time and that is a fact. Why expose yourself to that culture? Keep our boyz home and if they leave to these places they are traveling back in time for real...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Again, do you hear any Republicans saying there was a flip? Was fiscally conservative in 1948 any different than 2008?

Don't be so trifling. I'm not talking about "fiscal conservatism" only. Way more than that, particularly "states rights" and "limited government", and extending to individual rights, the role of religion, and, yes, government budgets and taxation.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I got a better question. Why’d all those libbies choose to go to a southern school if they had a problem with it? It’ll be like me going to Miami and being mad there’s a bunch of liberals everywhere...

Lots of people, of all political persuasions, go to the best state college they can get into. It's a monetary issue, not a political affiliation issue.

I was a registered Republican when I went to UM. Not mad at all.