This is factually correct but the writer does use quite a bit of liberty in choosing what topics to touch on and obviously chose to make republicans look like knights in shining armour (what else would you expect from a conservative columnist?)
Womens sufferage is an incredibly interest and complex topic. Ken Burns touches on it a bit in his Prohibition series as the movement was linked to that as well which was very interesting. And just so everyone is aware those states that did not ratify the 19th amendment until significantly later were:
Florida (1969)
South Carolina (1969)
Georgia (1970)
Louisiana (1970)
North Carolina (1971)
and not surprisingly bringing up the rear:
Mississippi (1984)
In the most unshocking list ever assembled, they are all from the south. They really enjoyed their caste-like social hierarchies down there!
Either way “the party of women” is a silly claim any by either party I never understood dems using it as it is a meaningless phrase. Sure its the party of some women, and the republican party is the party of other women. The same as it is for men, and any group of people.
You two fledglings can practice revisionist history all you want, but the Republican Party believes that women should vote, people should be free and people of all colors should have equal rights. This has not changed. To suggest otherwise is not rational. In fact, they had to overcome Democratic opposition to accomplish these goals. Those are the facts. If you want to argue that the Democratic party has adopted some of the Republican’s platform over time, that’s a different argument. As I said in the other thread, I’m not particularly fond of either party, but you two are just grasping at straws, as many liberals do when the facts don’t fit their narrative.
You put way too much emphasis on the label of party for these older time periods. If were being honest, lets come out and say it was the south. The south used to dominate the democratic party, now the south is firmly republican.
And the South is now a proponent of free people, equal rights for people of all colors, and women’s suffrage. What’s your point? Your boogeyman doesn’t exist.
If the south could get away with it I am sure the jim crow like laws would start making their way back. Any thought otherwise is silly, they fought as hard as possible for as long as possible to keep them. They would love them back. Its not like the people of the south magically became these tolerant people, the US government forced compliance on them.
The whole point is that your article was a rather silly bit of cherry picking data that is not even relevant anymore. The reality of the situation does not support your point as well as you think it does.
One point that is not correct, however, is the one claimed where the parties switched sides on the political spectrum in the past century. WTF? No… That’s the Democratic ploy to pull the wool over your eyes. Try again.
Just a disgraceful comment showing your total lack of understanding of the region and its history. You don’t see a mass exodus of anyone from the South. The opposite is true. You will find far more bigotry on the streets of New York than Atlanta or New Orleans. Atlanta is a beacon for black minorities specifically. Find anyone that went to grade school in the South. I’ll be surprised if they even know someone that would advocate for Jim Crow laws. Certainly not anyone under 65 and even then. Yours is the worst kind of ignorance.
I don’t *disagree* with anything that ghibli says. It’s just really inane. Ok, so the Repulican party believes “people should be free”. As opposed to what? There is no slavery party here, as far as I can tell. Or, they believe “people of all races should have equal rights”. Fine, but is there any non KKK person in the US who doesn’t believe this?
I’m sure the Republican party is also generally against clown themed pedophilia, but making that their slogan doesn’t exactly add much to their platform. I mean, this isn’t 1995, right?
Based on whats been coming out of the UK recently with their politicians & elites that may not be as absurd sounding as it once would. I agree those terms are pretty generic and don’t mean much.
I certainly didnt mean to imply the parties switched sides (although I have heard that thrown around by liberals) but the shifting of the south from the democratic party to the republican party certainly changed the make up of each party and that does impact a study of party positions at the time.
I agree with you though, any claim they “switched sides” is misleading. The make up changed and the parties adjusted their platforms to survive.
Agreed, now if the democrats would acknowledge what you have, we can start debating issues rather than trying to play the race and sex cards to get elected, even though they are new comers on those big issues.
Yep, the democrats lost and adjusted their platform on suffrage, freedom and rights. The Republicans were more big government during Lincoln’s time, for obvious reasons. But, they’re not exactly sticking to the new platform once they get elected now. The Democrats are now the party of big government in theory. There’s another switch.
While we’re at it, I questioned whether conservatives care about women’s rights, not Republicans. Looks like Ghibli can’t get past nomenclature. Maybe he will tell us that Nazis were socialists because of their name…is that right Ghibli?
I actually have no sympathy here. She choose to partake in highly risky behaviors: drugs+alcohol+bringing a complete stranger and having sex with him, and it ended badly. This is practically darwinism. I don’t feel bad about the bf or parents either. The bf can now go find a decent headed girl who doesn’t have awful judgment (saving him from some inevitable tragedy later in life). And parents were likely partly to blame If a genius engineer was randomly shot for no reason, then that i would feel bad about.
^ Nah, his fault for having money as an engineer. If people didn’t have money, they’d never be robbed. It’s not the robbers fault, just the rich guy for having cash. People shouldn’t have cash if they don’t want to be killed in a robbery. Darwinism at its finest.