Opinion of Bobby Jindal

[Oldiesfreak1854]

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

But Oldies, isn't it the Democrats who are the racist HPs and all the Republicans are wonderful people because they opposed slavery several centuries ago?

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

Why are things like race and home region so important to you?  I'm curious.

First of all, it wasn't "several centuries ago."  It was about a century and a half ago.  Why does the history only matter if it's pro-Democrat and/or anti-Republican?  Suppose for a moment that it was Republicans had supported slavery and segregation (which most leading Democrats already like to pretend that), and you knew about it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If not, then why, when it was, in fact, Democrats who supported slavery and segregation, do they get a pass based on the premise of "that was a long time ago" or "those guys are all dead now"? 
As for Jindal reflecting badly on the GOP, it's because of perception.  People perceive Republicans and Southerners a racist, even if the facts don't support it, and when they see a Southerner who is a Republican, they think that that person is racist.  Democrats have done such a good job of rewriting history on race and civil rights (with phony claims of the parties somehow "switching sides", racist "dog whistles", etc.) that people believe it, so whenever they see a Republican from the South, they automatically think "racist".  The facts don't support any of it, but in politics, perception matters infinitely more than facts.

But they have switched sides.

No, they haven't.  The Democrats' policies of keeping minorities poor and dependent on handouts is the antithesis of civil rights and is essentially a modern-day form of slavery.

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

But Oldies, isn't it the Democrats who are the racist HPs and all the Republicans are wonderful people because they opposed slavery several centuries ago?

Indeed. Just take a look at the 1972 election, when liberal HP George McGovern lost everywhere except the racist Democratic Solid South, while Massachusetts, Charles Sumner's state, gave Richard Nixon (Lincoln's Heir!) his best result?

Please stop being sarcastic.  I know that result is fake.  McGovern did poorly in the South because be did poorly nationally, and because he was WAAAAAY too liberal in general. 

[Donerail]

Zioneer: Don't argue with Oldies on the slavery issue. I won't bother addressing the rest of his post because it's so silly, to be kind.

^^^Stop trying. It won't work. Oldies was a history major who dropped out of college before he got up to the present; using facts from the last 50 years doesn't work on him.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

But Oldies, isn't it the Democrats who are the racist HPs and all the Republicans are wonderful people because they opposed slavery several centuries ago?

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

Why are things like race and home region so important to you?  I'm curious.

First of all, it wasn't "several centuries ago."  It was about a century and a half ago.  Why does the history only matter if it's pro-Democrat and/or anti-Republican?  Suppose for a moment that it was Republicans had supported slavery and segregation (which most leading Democrats already like to pretend that), and you knew about it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If not, then why, when it was, in fact, Democrats who supported slavery and segregation, do they get a pass based on the premise of "that was a long time ago" or "those guys are all dead now"? 
As for Jindal reflecting badly on the GOP, it's because of perception.  People perceive Republicans and Southerners a racist, even if the facts don't support it, and when they see a Southerner who is a Republican, they think that that person is racist.  Democrats have done such a good job of rewriting history on race and civil rights (with phony claims of the parties somehow "switching sides", racist "dog whistles", etc.) that people believe it, so whenever they see a Republican from the South, they automatically think "racist".  The facts don't support any of it, but in politics, perception matters infinitely more than facts.

But they have switched sides.

No, they haven't.  The Democrats' policies of keeping minorities poor and dependent on handouts is the antithesis of civil rights and is essentially a modern-day form of slavery.

HP; even if he's Indian, he's still a Southern Republican.

But Oldies, isn't it the Democrats who are the racist HPs and all the Republicans are wonderful people because they opposed slavery several centuries ago?

Indeed. Just take a look at the 1972 election, when liberal HP George McGovern lost everywhere except the racist Democratic Solid South, while Massachusetts, Charles Sumner's state, gave Richard Nixon (Lincoln's Heir!) his best result?

Please stop being sarcastic.

Wow, you actually noticed!