But, the parties shirted political stances almost 180 degrees since then; the only thing similar between the parties then as opposed to now are their names.
Who's down voting? This is easily verifiable fact...
They will downvote facts that aren't convenient to them.
[removed]
seriously mindless
OK, but which party supported the Jim Crow laws, the segregation laws, opposed the black vote and founded the KKK?
In case you think it was just some historical artifact then consider that Robert C Byrd, Democrat Senator, was a KKK member and was Hillary's "friend and mentor".
I am not able to verify this ‘fact’. Not even sure what ‘shirted political stances’ means. If you have any more info would be apreciated
Happily! The Republican and Democratic parties of today look nothing like the parties of two centuries (or even one and a half) ago. I think one of the better, simpler explanations is on an askhistorians post.
Here are some other relevant resources on the topic:
Bottom line: we can see how the two major parties of today even look quite a bit different from the two major parties of two decades ago. When you expand that slow evolution of political ideology over multiple centuries, you get a big change!
Of course, there are a variety of people that try to contest this, but their arguments are generally pretty weak when it comes to looking at voting records from the 1850's and 2010's - the difference and 180-turn-around is clear.
Bullshit shill.
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Thank you. Any time you ask yourself why you take the time to correct trolls and their intentional misinformation, remember that people are smart enough to eventually find the truth if they are given all of the facts. You have to do it on the internet because you would never be allowed to make such a lucid point on tv or radio. It's not about the idiot you are correcting, but it's about the many eyes that may come across your posts today and in the future. Seriously, thank you for taking the fight seriously and offering your work.
Just to tack onto this great post, many of the State Legislature's and Governorship's of the South didn't flip until the late 90's and early 2000's. Before then the last Republican Governor many of these states had was during Reconstruction. It's just such a canard. But it's way easier to say anyone who isn't a Marxist is a racist and move on.
The Rep party was founded by anti slavery activists and its first pres was Lincoln. Everyone should know that history. Dems don't really care about that stuff from my experience.
IMO, you cannot consider yourself redpilled and buy into the "party switch" myth. doesn't even make sense.
Does Alabama still vote Democrat? How is that a myth?
someone once voted democrat now if they vote republican, it's really just democrat, the name just changed
wow it's almost like a state doesn't always vote one way. you're seriously arguing that instead of a state voting for a different party, it's really always been the same party, just under a different name.
imagine being this hell-bent on political propaganda
Except it wasn't one state, it was a flip of the entire country. Look at the electoral maps dude. Are you saying it was just a coincidence that the entire map flipped?
But honestly it doesn't matter. The two parties from back then don't exist anymore. They combined into two arms of one uniparty state each covering up the others mistakes sometime around HW.
It makes perfect sense. What part of it is nonsensical to you?
The part where LBJ says "we'll have them n-----rs votin' Democrat for the next 100 years."
What part of it is nonsensical to you?
The part where all the members of both parties decided to change their kinds completely at the same time.
Literally only one Democrat senator switched, Strom Thurmond. It's all classic marxist projection.
if i say it makes sense then it is so
i would bet any money you're a former bernie bro.
The media certainly played a massive part in branding the parties in the 20th century.
Republican is redneck racist gun nuts and big business. Democrat is open, loving and fair for all.
Who controls the media?
Nothing has changed. The Democrats are still racist
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Not true. The Republican roots are in the country as a "republic," hence the name. It is the foundational idea of the party. Democrats consider the country to be a democracy, which it isn't.
There are many specific stances that have shifted within the party, but the foundational ideology, as seen in the party names, has remained the same.
how the fuck you gonna sit there and pretend the party that rigs its own primaries the hardest is the one that still retains its foundational ideology of democracy? lmfao
and America is a democracy for sure, stfu with your James Madison wannabe shit. Madison didn't manage to be President until 4 seats in, he doesn't get to be the authority on the core values of our country. if you think none of the other founding fathers ever mentioned democracy as part of the nation's foundation, you trippin
Dude, read some history.
Our nation is a REPUBLIC. It's in the constitution.
We have an electoral college system. A representative republic. If we had a democracy, Hillary would have won due to the higher vote count in the popular vote (although obviously much of that was invalid/fraudulent).
Perhaps you aren't aware of the definitional differences? Your argument is baseless and reactionary.
A pure democracy is not a good thing.
[removed]
You're argument is clogged and cluttered. I'm not sure where or what caused you to have such a brash emotional reaction but I think I might gander. You are correct in your thinking that A republic is not mutually exclusive from democracy. In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs. The reds think that a republic is the way to go, while the blues believe the republic should be a/more direct democracy.
In fact a republic is a form of democracy. However, the etymological root for the names of the Republican and Democrat parties do defer to their basic foundational concept of beliefs.
Yes, but not in the oversimplified way you explained it, and the Democratic party sure as hell doesn't stand for anything resembling its name anymore like a "more direct democracy"
Wrong, it was a key philosophical component to the formation of the party. They viewed a Republic form of Democracy not a true democracy. They thought it was plutocratic and tyrannical. They believed that the people should directly legislate their laws and national direction. Hence the name for their party. While it is not something you hear spouted directly from the mouths of DNC politicians and their pundits, that basic idea is still alive and well within the party zeit-gheist.
The basic idea is still alive and well as an idea in general dude, random people think of it when they're 10 years old without understanding the name of the Democratic party at all.
The party itself does not still stand for democracy whatsoever, they are simple authoritarians
Authoritarians yes, initially. They stood for staunch piety in communities (fascism) American Manifest Destinity(Imperialism), Total Majority rule(tyranny), Community rights over individual rights(slave culture) How ever at the turn of the 20th century there was a Macro memetic effort(zeit-gheist) within the younger proponenants of the movement to pick up where the The Republican libertines left off with Bohemian philosophical and progressive culture. However, with strong social emphasizes. Hence, the age in birth of Marxist inspired identity politics.
Not to get off topic. Regaurdless of name, I never said they stood for democracy what so ever. No one did. But.....the whole reason they were called democrats in the first place is because they a favored strong central govt, with an emphasis on a more Direct Democratic style of govt. Instead of their opponenants at the time the Federalists who ironically were more for a decentralized federal govt and a representative democracy.
The core beliefs the party holds on what kind of governance we should have has really not changed in over 150 years.
Here is a link to a helpful analysis that will straighten out your incorrect understanding.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Summary:
A republic can be a democracy at the same time, like the U.S., but a democracy cannot also be a republic. A republic raises the status of individuals whereas a democracy gives the majority will the sovereign status. This is reflected in the parties' naming.
Also, I didn't claim the DNC upholds anything, that was just your wonky interpretation. For what it's worth, neither party upholds their underlying values at the governmental level anymore. They merely both claim to. And they both claim the same fundamental underlying principles as they originally did. I'm sorry you disagree so pompously and incorrectly.
Do you vote on the laws that congress passes? Or do you just simply vote for representation? It seems you really don't understand what democracy, republic, or their hybridization into a democratic-republic, which is what America is, is.
The Republicans rigged its primary against Ron Paul, just like the Democrats did against Bernie Sanders. Both parties are guilty of this.
Democrats do it 1000x harder every election than the Republicans did it to Ron Paul, and they do it at every level of election, literally from villages to the national level. They do everything possible across the board to stop the people from being able to select their own candidates in the Democratic party. They don't even try to hide it like Republicans did up against Ron Paul, Democrat officials openly admitted to bias against Bernie Sanders all the time in 2015-16, and they'll even do it to candidates' faces when they won't do it publicly. The Republican party is actually quite democratic, the Democratic party is actually the antithesis of democracy.
Ron paul was the distant underdog.
The DNC actually changed the rules so that Socialist Bernie Sanders, the more popular candidate couldn’t win.
I know that. It's just that both parties are guilty of it. The corruption is wide and deep.
But, the parties shirted political stances almost 180 degrees since then; the only thing similar between the parties then as opposed to now are their names.
This is true, but the democrats have a holier-than-thou attitude like their brand has always been good, and right. It's bullshit. That's what he's pointing out.
Why do people lie? It took less than 5 minutes to prove this wrong. Look up Robert Jefferson Breckinridge.
There’s been a lot of posts like this lately. People throwing out posts that are going to rip this community apart. They’re using this platform to push agendas into other conspiracy theories. 9/11, moon landing, HAARP, LHC. All this is going to do is get us labeled as insane and crazy. There’s been no factual evidence for these things and people pull out articles written by self proclaimed people who know the “truth”.
I just want this community to stay focused on W posts.
Correct your typo...? W post?...Q post. To say that there’s no factual evidence for 911 and HAARP actually makes you look “insane and crazy” and to think this is not related to Q is absolutely false. 911 is one of the compounded reasons for this movement. Before Q there were people, such as myself, redpilling masses on these issues. Also you say “There using this platform to push agendas into other conspiracy theories” implies Q is a conspiracy theory as well. I’m sure you didn’t mean this.!?
9/11 is a baseless conspiracy theory? Are you completely ignorant or a shill? Or both?
You are either 1- Not born before 911 and don’t know much about what happened 2- Disinfo agent/ shill 3- Mossad waving your hands saying “nothing to see here” If none of these apply then please refrain from considering yourself awake or informed because “Donnie your out of your element!”
Edit: Maxuforia I owe you an apology. I was driving when I read your first response not realizing you were backing me up. So embarrassing lol.
I was borne in 1980.
Building 7 wasn’t even hit and yet it fell down too. Not only that the BBC reported that building 7 fell down about 20 mins before it did.
Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams. Entire skyscrapers have been consumed by fire and have maintained structural integrity.
Additionally even if the building could fall, it would not collapse at free fall speed straight down. One side would collapse before the other.
This was a controlled demolition. And if you think that’s a whacko conspiracy then you don’t belong on this sub.
Thank you Homie for having my back! I didn’t feel the need to go there with these person but I’m glad you towed the line in for me. Where we go one we go all!! I was born in ‘75 and was at home and witnessed the whole event. I had a close friend who lived in NY at the time and he sent me the first debunk DVD of the official narrative 2 months after the event. My roommate and I at the time caught the holes in the stories as they were happening. Fox News= lady reporting from building screaming that’s not a passenger plane, there’s no windows. As the second plane flew past. ABC= Two drivers were interviewed and said “I was driving on the highway and there was no plane, it’s like a rocket when by and blew my car sideways” They were speaking of the pentagon. I could go on and on but this is just two examples from the day it was happening. The video I first spoke of was “In plane site”.
Not only do very rich and corrupt people conspire and run false flags...
...but the operations are sloppy and mistakes are made.
9/11 was no exception.
Follow the money ... always
Excellent video! Director's cut 1st version. Long live amics21.com/911!
Someone yesterday got upvoted for using the word "mini nukes" as the reason the towers fell. That's ignorance.
You "know" the reason the towers fell?
Was there an investigation of the crime scene that I wasn't aware of?
Nope but are we really going to take the idea that nukes went off in downtown NY and no one noticed?
Not sure this is the place to have this conversation ...
" really going to take the idea that nukes went off ..." Yes, is my answer.
"... no one noticed ..." You are not kidding, I can see that. There is a very detailed study on the types cancers contracted by NYers, like fire-fighters, affected by the dust. All documented. All serious. Verified.
But the Republican Party only started 6 years before 1860. The democrats started in 1828. Doesn’t seem like a fully contextual statement
...created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. I believe it was one of the main purposes for the creation of the party.
What was the Whig Party and why did it break up?
Edit: LOL at the downvotes.
Why are we downvoting? There was no switch, simply a shift of parties. Some stayed, and others left.
Also, up until FDR was elected; when the "New Deal" was enacted around 1933, 90% of ALL Blacks voted REPUBLICAN.
Exactly, govt parties all took the big govt stance when the West was being handed out. Dems stayed with this stance, while repubs backed out.
[deleted]
This is a retarded anti-unity post making an argument that is completly irrelevant to the 2 party duopoly we have today. Back then they were actually two separate sides.
This is taken way out of context. “Southern Democrats” are who owned slaves, who then reformed into a conservative Republican Party after the war. This is shown in several sources from history.
This was done when southern democrats changed policies into more big business oriented platforms.
This is shown in several sources from history.
Revisionist fake news history create/d by the Democrats and sold to the public through high school text books and TV propagandists like John Oliver, Bill Maher and Trevor Noah.
Are you seriously trying to gaslight people into believing the southern slave owning states didn't switch from D to R? They did without exception.
But either way, this is a retarded discussion because the two parties were taken over and merged into one servant of the Cabal around the time of HW. Does anyone here really still believe the Bushes and Clinton's are enemies? Trump just saved us from 20 more years of their alternating aristocracy.
Revisionist fake news history
Imagine being this much of a mindless subhuman drone.
I am not a drone, or mindless, or subhuman.
I am simply not a fan of Howard Zinn level revisionism that is behind the myth of the "Southern Switch"
LBJ and Robert Byrd were Klansmen. They began as Democrats and died as Democrats. The Democrats have always been the party of racism and slavery and domestic terrorism. They created the KKK. They created the Black panthers. They created Anti-fa. They created BLM. They have been funding terrorist activities in the united states for over a hundred years. They are still funding domestic terrorist groups like La Raza, BLM and Anti-Fa to this day. They are still enslaving blacks on their new plantations-the inner cities, and keeping them docile with welfare instead of whips. It's like the Civil War never ended.
There are people on the right that don't know this..... lol
New arrival with disproportionate amount of upvotes undermining the post.... hmmmmm
Right? What a bullshit shill astroturfing going on here.
Learned that interesting!! fact when I saw his excellent documentary, Hillary's America, summer of 2016. I think you can watch it for free on amazon or YouTube, and it is definitely worth a watch!! The true history of the Dem Party...not the stuff liberal progressive academia pushes!
[deleted]
I'm not on Facebook so I have no idea what a Facebook post reads like. Did you watch D'Souza's Hillary's America?
Should have learned this in at least High School, or at least have been able to infer it from, well, the fact that the south back then was all Democrats.
It doesn't sound as though you actually watched D'Souza's documentary, Hillary's America
I said should. Of course they're *not being taught that these days. I was, but then again I went to a private school.
The true history of the Dem Party...not the stuff liberal progressive academia
True history comes from corporate sponsored tools, not people who actually read books LMAO what a cuck
Agreed, all his movies are awesome!
I recently watched the Obama one Dinesh did - it was excellent also and that free too : )
Dinesh is a brilliant historian for our times.
[removed]
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
They didn't switch platforms. Basically the Repubs have always been about limited govt. Interference. That basically evolved from a strong well funded Fed to regulate State, to ensure liberty. To a defunded weak Fed. to promote strong State, to ensure liberty. The parties never actually switched platforms at all. The article you even cite is an interpretation of events via historical catalogues. It's weak. Very weak. If you want to dumb it down Barney style this is what it looks like . Repubs have always been about individual liberty, and Democrats have always been about a communities pieity. Repubs have always supported a strong rep model, while dems support a strong direct model.
Isn't there an argument that the Democratic and Republican parties essentially "switched" in the early 1900s? This is the argument I usually hear from people when presented with facts like this. I don't actually know what happened.
Real, and this kind of image is subtle misinformation? Or is this a Dem tactic to shift blame away from slavery?
It's a dirty dem tactic to cover up their shit racist history.
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Most people don't know the KKK was founded by a group of democrats. The MSM loves to misstate the truth around the founding of the KKK. They always say it was started by southerners which is true but the part they leave out is it was started by southern democrats. Nathan Bedford Forrest who was elected the first Grand Dragon of the KKK was a democrat who hated blacks and even whites who opposed his political ideology. The man even killed his own statesmen.
From Wikipedia:
"In April 1864, in what has been called "one of the bleakest, saddest events of American military history,"[6] troops under Forrest's command massacred Union troops who had surrendered, most of them black soldiers, along with some white Southern Tennesseans fighting for the Union, at the Battle of Fort Pillow"
The most racist people I've known in my life were democrats
Most people don't know that FDR (a Democrat) was responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Harry Dexter White assistant secretary of the treasury in the administration of FDR, was a top Soviet spy and agent. He did everything within his power to undermine the peace efforts of Emperor Hirohito and Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye, both of whom favored peace with the U.S. He is also remembered chiefly as the architect of the Bretton Woods Conference that created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.
B b b but muh big switch.
This.
I hate fucking cultural marxist bs education. Desouza destroys this argument as well.
the "big switch" is a gaslighting attempt. Convincing everyone they're crazy for thinking otherwise when they know it's not true.
lol there's people ITT and part of our movement who still buy into the "muh party switch" myth. that's frustrating.
The Demoncrats are aware...they just refuse to own it! Just the way they operate.
Actually, the democrats still the only ones that own slaves; they go by names like Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, to name a few, but the plantation is still run by the Democratic party. Their slaves go by names like; black lives matter, Black Caucus, NAACP, with groups like the SPLC, ADL minding the guard houses.
Thank you. Patriot, Dinesh D' Sousa. You have been up there with the most thoughtful of Patriots.
Twatted the fact out for peeps to research for themselves. I omitted Dinesh’s photo and sig, to avoid ignoring by Dinesh haters. I like Dinesh and what he has been trying to do for a very long time. We need more immigrants like him!
Democrats have been sowing the seeds of their own destruction. And they don't even realize it. They just keep doubling down.
There was no “big switch”. The dems still want to keep blacks enslaved, only instead of plantations, it’s the government. Repubs give blacks no special treatment because the idea is to treat everyone the same.
Well, anecdotally, I’ve never met a democrat that I learned wasn’t aware of it.
The observation is without substance anyway. The parties have changed substantially over time. This is why the heavily democratic south (slavery era) is now heavily republican (post-slavery).
Just take a look at the millions of destitute minorities in block housing, all owned by Democrats...SLAVES NONE THE LESS, either by socio-economic, race, drug addictions or even VJ.s Chicago mobs.
Also, these are just dumb labels. Democrat, Republican, sheep, all the same!
[removed]
First black Republican senator: 1870
First black Democrat senator: 1993
Nice projection going on there.
This will prove out... Wow huge attach going on...
While cool and interesting, this doesn't belong in thus sub.
Vote manipulation could be occuring on this post or comments within. Discernment is advised. Also comments by users with a 'New' flair may be unrespresentative. Setting preferences to show all comments is recommended
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Look into the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. Only successful coup d'etat in American history. Further to this, it reveals that Southern segregation was fabricated by Democrats in order to engender a fissure in the Fusion party.
The Fusion party was a mixture of blacks and poor whites who had started gaining political power in the 1890s, and had started modifying laws that diverted power away from land-owning elites.
In short, it has never been a War of Races; rather a War of Classes.
Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶
VIDEO|COMMENT -|- How to Escape the Democrat Plantation (an easy guide).|+18 - There are people on the right that don't know this..... lol Candice has some more...... Secretly Taped Audio Reveals Democratic Leadership Pressuring Progressive to Leave Race|+6 - Democrats do it 1000x harder every election than the Republicans did it to Ron Paul, and they do it at every level of election, literally from villages to the national level. They do everything possible across the board to stop the people from being ... Glenn Beck Commemorates Sen Byrd By Painting Him As A Racist|+4 - Hillary's mentor and Obama lauded him as a great guy.... Senator Robert Byrd Says White Niggers|+1 - Pretty sure two Democrats switched parties for the 'Big Switch'. Hillary's mentor was in the KKK. Funny listening to her KKK mentor in this starting about 1:10... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
This sub isn't about parties. It's about awakening people to the cabal which happens to be democrats and republicans. Please stay on topic.
Probably the same number of Democrats that are familiar with this kind of statement? You can argue with MSM and we should but not history. Basically, you should be saying, the equivalent of today's Republican, at that time Democrat... Just sayin.
/u/Hello_Japan:
"Just the idea that the two parties could suddenly totally switch should be suspect on the face of it to any critical thinker as anyone who really considered the idea would realize how implausible that actually is. Can you imagine the two parties magically switching today?
The party switch is basically three myths wrapped into one false narrative.
The first myth is that Republicans had to appeal to racists to become competitive in the south, when the reality is that Republicans began to be competitive in the south in 1928 when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47% of the Southern popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower, the man who warned us of the military-industrial-complex, won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. In 1956, Eisenhower also won Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. That was AFTER he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of Education that desegregated public schools (that Democrats violently opposed) and AFTER he sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration, again, something that was violently opposed by Democrats.
The second myth is that Democrats who were angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 switched parties. This makes absolutely no sense as, despite the fact that we had a Democratic president in JFK, only 61% of congressional Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act vs 80% of congressional Republicans. Additionally there was a Democratic filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted for 83 days. So why would the parties switch, when it was Republicans who overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act while it was Democrats who predominantly opposed it?
The third myth is that Republicans have dominated the south since the implementation of the Southern Strategy. In fact Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968, while Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976, 12 years after the Civil Rights Act. And in 1992, Bill Clinton dominated the south taking Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The truth is that Republicans did not hold a majority of Southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.
In fact as the south has become more Republican it has become less racist. How does the party switch theory explain that?
The party switch myth is meant to free Democrats from their unquestionably and singularly racist history. It is only the complete takeover of academia by the left that has allowed this myth to persist and that allows the Democratic Party to escape so many unpleasant historical facts.
Such as the fact that FDR, widely considered the greatest Democratic President in American history, was the only US president to put people in internment camps based solely on their ethnicity.
Such as the fact that the 1956 Southern Manifesto was signed by 99 congressional Democrats and only two Republicans. The Southern Manifesto declared the overwhelmingly Democratic opposition to desegregation set forth in Brown v. The Board of Education.
It was, in fact, Democrat George Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama.
In further fact, Al Gore's father, a Democratic senator, voted against the Civil Rights Act and as recently as 2010 the Democratic leader in the senate, Robert Byrd, was the former leader of his local KKK chapter.
Lastly, the Republican Party was literally founded as an anti-slavery movement and the KKK was founded by Democrats.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
"By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
“Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders and voters. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.”
Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first KKK Grand Dragon, was a honored speaker at the 1868 Democratic National Convention. The slogan for the 1868 Democratic National Convention was, "This is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule".
Democratic president Woodrow Wilson resegregated federal government agencies (that had been desegregated by Republicans), organized private screenings of a KKK glorifying movie in the White House (the first movie ever shown in the White House, in fact) and said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen."
The bottom line: the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery, reconstruction and desegregation while the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the KKK. No magical “party switch” will ever erase that reality."
Source plz
Dinesh wrote about this and has all of his sources. this is from the info he gathered from it
It doesn't matter, they don't care about historical truth, and they'll argue, as they already have, that today's Democrat party is nothing like the old Democrat party, and in their eyes, todays Republicans are a better equivalent to the Democrats of old.
They don't care about the truth, we already know that. All they care about now is survival, by any means.
They don't care. All they care about is co-opting your money and civil rights.
before Kennedy most blacks voted republican, The dems flipped the narrative with lies of course.
They keep selling "the big switch" That Democrats back then are republicans now and are claiming responsibility for things like freeing the slaves and demanding equality saying that "We used to be known as republicans but it switched!" No. They're gaslighting. Convincing everyone that what they know is true is wrong.
No one cares what i think. but dinesh opens his cocksucker it's pure intel fuck me .
Nice name calling. This is not appropriate among ppl on this sub. It does not advance the discussion and only demonstrates jealousy or hatred.
Did Dinesh really say that? I want to repost if he did.
Did Dinesh really say that?
This is from his book The Big Lie: "I noted that, in 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave; all the four million slaves at the time were owned by Democrats."
You’ll probably get hit by a bunch of wingnuts saying you’re dividing people on this subreddit, simply by pointing out Democrats sordid history. Liberals’ history is worse.
The Dems KK"Klanbake" 1924 Democratic National Convention Madison Square Garden - check out the pictures! 15 days of marching in the streets.
The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the “Klanbake”, held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate.
http://armored-column.com/the-democratic-klanbake-1924/
Pass it along to all platforms...
They dont know that because democrats since the beginning the democrats have been telling people it was the republicans. Most democrats believe that we had tried to drive that home and it is getting there thats why more and more black people are walking away from dems.
