One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
Jul 17, 2021 19:29:45   #
JoyV
 
This is the first article I've read with a logical explanation of why the southern States turned Republican. It had nothing to do with racism or white supremacy, but rather primarily about religion and religious persecution of both whites and blacks. The Dixiecrats never switched to Republican but simply lost more and more power as the common people who were never inflamed with white supremacy left the Democrat Party for the Republican Party.


https://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/

Reply
Jul 17, 2021 19:43:41   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Seems funny how everything King stood for is what the Republican Party stands for. Most especially that one should be judged by their character not their color. Now Democrats want to separate and judge by color not character.
JoyV wrote:
This is the first article I've read with a logical explanation of why the southern States turned Republican. It had nothing to do with racism or white supremacy, but rather primarily about religion and religious persecution of both whites and blacks. The Dixiecrats never switched to Republican but simply lost more and more power as the common people who were never inflamed with white supremacy left the Democrat Party for the Republican Party.


https://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/
This is the first article I've read with a logical... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 17, 2021 19:59:21   #
JoyV
 
JFlorio wrote:
Seems funny how everything King stood for is what the Republican Party stands for. Most especially that one should be judged by their character not their color. Now Democrats want to separate and judge by color not character.


They always have judged by color, or one or another superficial category. Always wanted to divide people into separate boxes.

Reply
 
 
Jul 17, 2021 21:31:17   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
JoyV wrote:
They always have judged by color, or one or another superficial category. Always wanted to divide people into separate boxes.


I agree. Except now they’re actually up front about it.

Reply
Jul 18, 2021 00:37:22   #
PeterS
 
JoyV wrote:
This is the first article I've read with a logical explanation of why the southern States turned Republican. It had nothing to do with racism or white supremacy, but rather primarily about religion and religious persecution of both whites and blacks. The Dixiecrats never switched to Republican but simply lost more and more power as the common people who were never inflamed with white supremacy left the Democrat Party for the Republican Party.


https://humanevents.com/2006/08/16/why-martin-luther-king-was-republican/
This is the first article I've read with a logical... (show quote)

You do understand that the Republican Party of the 50's and 60's was far more progressive and liberal than anything you cons would tolerate today--especially having the likes of MLK as a member of your party. If you could ostracise someone like Liz Cheney then MLK wouldn't have a chance in hell...

Reply
Jul 18, 2021 01:37:40   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
PeterS wrote:
You do understand that the Republican Party of the 50's and 60's was far more progressive and liberal than anything you cons would tolerate today--especially having the likes of MLK as a member of your party. If you could ostracise someone like Liz Cheney then MLK wouldn't have a chance in hell...


Cheney’s a joke, much like you. It’s not the Republicans putting everyone in a box and deciding everything’s racist. We have always been about individual Liberty. You’re from the party that only sees color and then lets rich old white politicians tell you how to think and feel.

Reply
Jul 18, 2021 03:38:43   #
JoyV
 
PeterS wrote:
You do understand that the Republican Party of the 50's and 60's was far more progressive and liberal than anything you cons would tolerate today--especially having the likes of MLK as a member of your party. If you could ostracise someone like Liz Cheney then MLK wouldn't have a chance in hell...


No the Republican Party was not more liberal. In fact it was far more conservative. Growing up as a minority in the 50s and 60s I can personally attest to that. In fact until Trump was elected in 2016, the Republican Party leadership had become far more liberal starting with GWBush and the neocons.

MLK would fit in perfectly with conservatives today, especially constitutional conservatives which are what the majority of Trump supporters are. MLK would be very opposed to CRT and equity. His most famous words were "I have a dream that one day we will be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin." We had succeeded in the majority of the country doing just that when liberals and progressives turned back the clock to judging people solely by the color of their skin.

In our founder's day, the term liberal used to mean favoring individual liberty, individual property ownership rights, free and open markets, freedom to speak your mind, freedom to assemble, and freedom to choose your religion. Hence we became citizens and no longer subjects.

Today being liberal in the USA means willingly giving yourself over to being under the authority of a central government. Expecting the government to take care of you on other people money. Accepting rules of what your leaders consider politically correct. Pretty much the opposite of what our founders set up with our constitution.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.