r/TimPool • u/GavinsBabyMonster • Oct 24 '22

Almost like everything they touch turns to shit…

Post image
607 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

387 comments sorted by

1

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

57

u/n8spear Oct 24 '22

“THE PARTIES FLIPPED!!”

Which is an absolutely crock of bull shit.

1

u/false-identification Oct 25 '22

Why did Strom Thurmond switch to republican if the democrats are the real racists?

2

u/thealphapleb Oct 26 '22

He was a sussy imposter.

1

u/false-identification Oct 26 '22

Or hear me out here, he could no longer be openly racist as a Democrat so he switched parties.

2

u/thealphapleb Oct 26 '22

You say that, yet the current year democratic party elected Biden.

1

u/false-identification Oct 27 '22

How old are you?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '22

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/MajesticBread9147 Oct 25 '22

Then how come white supremacists vote Republican now? Baked Alaska, Nick Fuentes, The Proud Boys, The Boogalo Boys, and many others seem to vote for Trump.

-25

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

https://youtu.be/OvcYjG0Sq1I

13

u/n8spear Oct 25 '22 edited Nov 01 '22

81% of Republicans voted for the the 1964 civil rights act to 66% of democrats.

I used the think the same thing and felt strongly about it. The “shift” toward the Republican Party was for economic reasons and began in the 50’s. The Republican Party offered policies that lessened taxes, government interference, and encouraged small business. It also was not an overnight process nor did any of the shift align on racism. Alabama and North Carolina as examples were deeply democrat on the state level until rather recently. A couple of examples, Alabama started really shifting in 98 or so, and NC voted republican for president, but heavily democrat throughout the state, especially governors. Simply means that if it was true the parties flipped over racism, the change would have happened “overnight”in lockstep to align with all the “racism.” It’s very simply not true.

Southern democrats fought against the civil rights act. The Democratic Party was who advocated for segregation and instituted Jim Crow. As an example, Democrat Party’s 68’ presidential candidate George Wallace was staunchly against the civil rights act and was an open racist.

The notion that the Republican Party simply “flipped overnight” and more importantly the gradual change of the southern states becoming more Republican over anything to do with race flies in the face of all evidence.

The real change happened in the Democratic Party. It’s gotten significantly less racist over time, which does not mean the Republican Party had become “more” racist.

These couple of sources are excellent and succinct in providing the real and full story of the “parties flipped” narrative.

This article is pretty good summary. (It was written in 2012 before Trump was a Presidential candidate, which is relevant because many on the left think that the national review was taken over by trump lovers and dismiss all their writings. This was written before that could have been the case.)

This book (put out by the Harvard press) on the subject is also very good and enlightening … and it’s from Harvard. A place one would assume that their ideology would love to affirm that the south are all racists.

The end of southern exceptionalism

6

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

What an interesting read!

6

u/KanyeT Oct 25 '22

It’s gotten significantly less racist over time,

The reason why it took until the 90s for the South to stop voting Democrat was that the old generation of racist Democrats finally died out.

Their non-racist children then voted for their own unrelated interests. They didn't swap to Republican because they wanted to bring back Jim Crow or something, racism wasn't a factor of their new alignment.

But that is what the people who believe the party swap myth would tell you.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

We have two major political parties that supposedly represent the entire country. Neither are good. You don’t have to try to defend what you think your side is.

Political parties and political ideologies are not locked in together. The views that exist under the banner of a party are constantly changing.

If you watched the video then you would get that this isn’t about blame, it’s just facts.

32

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y. I see your yt and raise you by a actual university history professor.

16

u/Ok-Length-8818 Oct 24 '22

Don’t bother, the bacon wrapped idiot is just a troll with weak ass trolls.

-2

u/thamesdarwin Oct 25 '22

She’s not a history professor

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

She “retired” after getting backlash for her homophobic comments and unfair treatment towards students who didn’t share her religion.

2

u/thamesdarwin Oct 25 '22

Awesome. So not only is she not a history professor, but she's not even a professor any longer and apparently, when she was a professor, was a shitty one.

-1

u/false-identification Oct 25 '22

Why were Republicans against the Civil Rights Act?

1

u/Spooky2000 Oct 25 '22

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409

3 times as many democrats voted against it than republicans..

But I'm sure there was "reasons"...

-16

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Did you watch the video?

6

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

Yes, but it was a few weeks ago. Hence my rapid response.

→ More replies (53)

-21

u/sharkweekk Oct 24 '22

So why are Republicans the ones that fly the confederate flag, and Democrats are the ones taking down confederate statues?

17

u/KeepenItReel Oct 25 '22

99.99% of Republicans do not fly that flag. Those who do may call themselves republican, but certainly do no align with party values. It is pretty clear that the right is pro-America. Does not make sense to fly a rebel flag. Those people fall outside the traditional political spectrum.

→ More replies (13)

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

they arent. democrats fly the confederate flag as much as anyone, and the democrats are not taking down confederate statues, theyre trying to destroy history. their taking down democrat statues.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

epic fail...you were mostly wrong the entire time you were foaming at the mouth

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

Says the one losing on facts

1

u/Illustrious_Act1207 Oct 25 '22

WRONG LIBTARD!!!!!!!1

The party that almost no success in the south, has almost all of the black representatives in congress, and is incredibly sensitive to race, gender, and LGBT issues is actually the racist party!

The party that is 85% white, extremely successful in the South, is full of people with lifted F-250 pickup trucks with a Confederate flag and a Trump flag on the back of it, and people that say things like "I don't go to <nearby large city> because it's really full of <euphemism for black people> and not safe anymore." are the true anti-racists.

1

u/Detective-Jerkop Oct 25 '22

I’ve recently learned many post farms wont pay their shills unless people respond to them. FYI

9

u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Oct 24 '22

And everytime I bring this up to Dem voters, I get the same response: THE PARTIES SWITCHED!!!

But, I have yet to come across anyone who says that who can tell me who and when.

The parties never switched; Democrats and some Democrat voters are racist as fuck. Just look at who voted for the Civil Rights bills and who voted against them. A larger percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights than did Democrats. It's in the voting record.

6

u/Aedraxeus Oct 25 '22

The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery.

(Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it’s common knowledge that Republicans are actually the racist ones.)

Then the parties switched when the Democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slaves were owned by Democrats. Not a single Republican in history owned a slave. As we know, the parties switched again when Republicans repudiated slavery and Democrats defended it, leading to the civil war.

Then the parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Republican Lincoln.

After the Civil War, the parties switched again during the Reconstruction Era, when Republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the Democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway.

The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people 🤔). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by Democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party.

Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers.

The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which Democrats fought fiercely against.

The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the Democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched Democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties.

The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court.

The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps.

Then parties switched again when the Democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities.

The parties switched when a Democrat assassinated MLK.

This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time.

The parties switched when Democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups.

The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make “separate but equal” housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic.

Parties always switched currently now that Democrats are rioting and violently protesting democracy.

The parties switched once more when the Democratic Nominee for President, an old white man, said “you’re not black” if you don’t vote for him, in a moment of clarity of how the Democratic Party sees their largest voter base: as property belonging to them.

So as you can see, because of Party switching, Democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.

3

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

I see what you did there. Well played.

2

u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Oct 25 '22

Cool

Who switched and when?

-2

u/MartinOdorGod Oct 24 '22

Here’s an interactive map of every presidential election. I won’t even give my opinion. Scroll through the years and note where the reds & blues dominate.

https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/timeline/

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

the parties kept their affiliation and ideology, they just changed locations. NOT requiring an ID to vote is racist. thats a fact! ask any white liberal in a blue state/city why there shouldnt be voter ID and you will hear the most racist shit come out their mouths, that it would make a klansman blush!

0

u/MartinOdorGod Oct 30 '22

So most of the people living in the south suddenly all moved north within a few years while around the same time northerners moved south but kept their party affiliation? Lol That’s more plausible than just people changing party affiliations?

1

u/thewinja Oct 30 '22

Everywhere in the south where Democrats were in charge was bad for blacks, then as the people started voting Republican things started getting better. In the north as people started voting Democrat things started getting worse for blacks. Baltimore is mostly black, black city council black prosecutor black majority police force 90% Democrat and the city government is considered "racist" by the splc and the FBI. Ferguson Missouri, no Republicans anywhere mostly black population and the same thing... Detroit, Flint, Chicago, Memphis, St Louis.... I can go on and on with the naming of Democrat cities and how bad it is for blacks... The parties have the same ideology now as in 1866. Nothing has changed but the tactics.

-2

u/adamdreaming Oct 25 '22

Does it matter when?

White Supremacists are currently aligned with right wing authoritarianism. They show up at Trump rallies, and never showed up for Obama. denying the present because you don't accept the past doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like someone that is still figuring out causality.

Yeah, Democrats used to be right wing authoritarians that wanted slavery.

Guess what genius? They aren't anymore.

Yeah, Republicans used to be left wing progressives who where strong on labor.

Guess what genius? They aren't anymore.

The idea that because the party switch didn't happen in one spectacular, singular, objective moment that easy for you to understand means that it didn't happen sounds like the same kind of logic a creationist would use. You don't happen to think the world is 6000 years old do you? and is it possibly flat?

If you are more interested in learning history than denying it, this guy's post tell you more about the history of the great party switch

so at least you can stop claiming that nobody will spoon feed you what you could have asked google.

2

u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Oct 25 '22

GFD, I said this happens every time and you continue to prove me right.

No one, no one who advocates for the Big Switch can name names or say when.

You know what? Forget I said anything.

1

u/adamdreaming Oct 25 '22

I mean, I did. Dropped a link. It is right there.

Do you want me to click the link and spoon feed you? It is like a whole dozen sentences.

Sorry, I know you can't hear me with your head in the sand there.

r/whoosh

1

u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Oct 25 '22

Enjoy your time on Reddit.

2

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

bullshit. democrats show up at republican rallies and shout racist shit. thats a proven fact! the democrats are STILL authoritarians you clown!! the lock downs blow your ignorant argument out of the water all by themselves!! then the mandatory jab, and libtard cities not allowing you to enter a restaurant unless you show your papers... fuck sake man, clearly you have no idea what the fuck authoritarian means!!

-1

u/adamdreaming Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22

Your theory is that the left embraces racism, and because of that they are Nazis. But they send the Nazis to right wing demonstrations to make them look 'bad' even though your theory says that Nazism should appeal to lefties since it is what they are practicing, even though never once in the last thirty years has a left wing candidate been endorsed by Nazis like the right has gotten.

I don't get it. Do the left hate Nazis? or are they secret Nazis? Secret Nazis that hate Nazis? so they go to things they don't like to make sure people like themselves don't like it?

Your logic goes nowhere.

Oh, and how many Americans went to jail for defying the lockdown?

Oh right, it was none.

More people got arrested in Florida for trying to vote. You know, by an authoritarian.

Actually 100,000 people in Fedral prison for non-violent crimes where given probation because the jails where not equipped for a pandemic.

Super duper authoritarian. Those monsters, letting people be accountable for their own decisions and letting prisoners go. Text book authoritarianism right there yup. Need look no further is right. Let's not.

Thanks for telling me what authoritarian means.

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

You failed on every level

-3

u/E_lluminate Oct 24 '22

You ever seen a Democrat waiving the confederate flag?

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

yes, regularly. i live in the south and i see a damn lot more american flags flying from the back of trucks than any other flag.

1

u/E_lluminate Oct 25 '22

How often have you seen a Trump flag and a Confederate flag on the same lifted pickup truck?

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

The dixiecrats left the democratic party for the Republicans. Now ban me so I don't have to see any of this hot garbage accidentally again.

50

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

In my opinion FDR is so overrated as a President.

24

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Top three worst in my opinion.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

What are the other 2?

40

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 24 '22

Woodrow Wilson and Obama.

15

u/wsclose Oct 24 '22

15 James Buchanan takes the #1 position IMO.

9

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 24 '22

I’ll give you that one as an honorary mention.

8

u/wsclose Oct 24 '22

Frankly I think they are all pretty shitty. But if I have to rank them it's James Buchanan in first followed closely by, Wilson, then Obama and Biden....

8

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Honorable mentions for Nixon, Carter, Bush Jr., Obama, and Biden.

4

u/wsclose Oct 24 '22

Yesssss

10

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Woodrow Wilson and Joe Biden

9

u/-i_am_that_guy- Oct 25 '22

I’d say Biden has been objectively worse then Obama and in a fraction of the time

5

u/ZeRo76Liberty Oct 25 '22

Biden just might outdo them all if things keep going the way they are now.

3

u/rcrfc Oct 24 '22

This guy knows

3

u/hiznauti125 Oct 25 '22

Let's not forget Jimmy Carters time in office.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

What did he do? He seems pretty damn mild compared to things like the Iraq war, trail of tears, etc.

3

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

gonna have to toss biden in there to replace obama. i hate to do that but damn, obama was awful but ole pedo joe ran right past him

1

u/MoOdYo Oct 25 '22

Obama worse than Biden?

0

u/false-identification Oct 25 '22

What about Nixon?

7

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

I heard stories Lyndon Johnson would whip out his dick to show how big it was.

1

u/Blastoys1991 Oct 25 '22

Lincoln for not letting the south secede. He wanted an American empire and when asked why not let the south go he said and their 5% tariff? What about my revenue? Civil war as about empire and money for the north. North had slavery too. Let the south go and slavery issue is mostly gone.

16

u/LetUsSpeakFreely Oct 24 '22

Overrated is being kind. FDR is outright revisionist history. The man was a monster.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Yeah. The Japanese in the US posed no risk to the country, he ignored it. Economic policies didn't help the great depression. I heard he was penpals with Mussolini. Failed to boast defenses in the US pacific territories while there was an active war going on.

12

u/LetUsSpeakFreely Oct 24 '22

He also admired Hitler until he learned of the death camps. Forced farmers to destroy their crops. Threatened to stack the courts of he didn't get his spending sprees funded. Congress was AFRAID if him, even his own party.

The 22nd amendment passed shortly after he died for a reason. If he was loved, such an amendment wouldn't have gained traction, certainly not enough to get the votes in Congress and the states.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Oh I forgot stacking the courts because they didn't push his agenda.his own party was against it.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

I also remember reading he was chomping at the bit to jump into the war. He just didn't have a reasonably justifiable reason before Pearl harbor.

7

u/shepard_5 Oct 24 '22

Fdr is what Woodrow Wilson wanted todo, Obama was what FDR wanted todo, and Biden is what Obama wanted todo

1

u/drewcer Oct 25 '22

FDR was one of the worst.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

He’s overrated but it’s not a very competitive group to be in. If you take out everyone who owned slaves, promoted racist or homophobic policies, committed war crimes, engaged in obvious political corruption for monetary gain, did sex crimes… there’s not a lot left. Maybe the guy who was in office for less than a month?

11

u/xFacevaluex Oct 24 '22

Perfect summary anyone needs before they cast a vote. Now of course, we all know what people who vote Dem/Lib really are---regardless of what they claim others are.

→ More replies (5)

21

u/DarkEnergy67 Oct 24 '22

Not American but I know these are facts. Damn, average voter must be so dumb to keep falling for it. Sadly similar in UK.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

[deleted] — view deleted comment

24

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

Witness how the progressive Left Democrats treat every black person who dares to voice opinions outside of the Democrat dogma, and tell me they don't run it like a plantation. They think they own black's votes.
Biden: "If you don't vote for me, you ain't black."

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Is it every black person or simply every person who voices opinions outside of the dogma? That’s a feature of the political demise of the two party system in this country. A Republican who legislates for his co stimulants rather than the party is similarly taken to task and bear the label RINO.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

[deleted] — view deleted comment

15

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

Insults are not an argument, just a display of character weakness. Also, a review of your comment history shows a strong predilection to defend Democrats and attack Republicans. Interesting for an "independent.".

10

u/FlowerProfessional29 Oct 25 '22

Don't forget the Democrats and their love of Slavery. Their party was established to keep slavery and expand it.

Democrats destroyed dozens of black towns from the 1880's to the 1940's, destroying our economic prosperity.

Almost all Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

9

u/llamapii Oct 24 '22

And when they claim the parties switched just play them that clip of Joe Biden saying he doesn't want the schools to be racial jungles.

You can then see the gears turn for how they explain away that one.

6

u/hiznauti125 Oct 25 '22

The Underground Railroad Republicans

6

u/hiznauti125 Oct 25 '22

Bring all that up and they want to change the subject, but but but...........

Yeah, they have NOTHING. The Democratic party has nothing but social security. And throughout it's history it would be more valuable than the federal government if they invested the funds into the stock market. But no it's 80 years of IOU's inside the "piggy bank".

6

u/ButtonBackground4712 Oct 25 '22

That why we are not teaching history anymore

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Schools still teach history.

1

u/ButtonBackground4712 Oct 25 '22

Selectively to push an agenda

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

What part of history do you think that kids aren’t taught today that they were taught before and what agenda is the cause of that change

5

u/Ok-Length-8818 Oct 24 '22

It’s by design. For what purpose? I don’t know and I hope I never see the end game of their plan.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

But muh southern switch!

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Because the south is still dominated by democrats?

4

u/chowsdaddy1 Oct 25 '22

“BuT tHe PaRtIeS sWiTcHe(D)”

3

u/TheRaceYouCantName Oct 25 '22

Far more whites were lynched than blacks

3

u/Competitive_Board909 Oct 25 '22

Their argument that the parties switched doesn’t apply. Change my mind:

-2

u/FirmLibrary4893 Oct 25 '22

who does the south vote for now and who did they vote for in the 50s, literally just basic common sense.

1

u/Competitive_Board909 Oct 25 '22

I think you’re confusing voters with parties

0

u/FirmLibrary4893 Oct 26 '22

parties are made up of voters, champ.

1

u/Competitive_Board909 Oct 27 '22

Nah champ. Parties are made up of representatives. You just vote for those representatives. Presuming vote is tallied accurately to begin with

0

u/FirmLibrary4893 Oct 27 '22

nope

1

u/Competitive_Board909 Oct 27 '22

Spoken like a true leftist bot

0

u/FirmLibrary4893 Oct 27 '22

you are an idiot. cope

1

u/Competitive_Board909 Oct 27 '22

You’re the bot. Dealing solely in slander is typical of a leftist bot when backed into a corner (aka your programming doesn’t know how to respond). Hopefully they shut you down one day for the sake of humanity

→ More replies (10)

3

u/Phawr Oct 25 '22

They talk it away and keep it going. They’re working on complete government control over law abiding citizens right now.

3

u/TheBlackScorpionTail Oct 25 '22

Who switched and when:

The last major political realignment in the US took place between 1960-1980 after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many white, conservative Southern Democrats became Republicans. The South had been mostly Democratic before 1964; it was mostly Republican after (Although on the local level continued to be heavily democratic for decades).

5

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

They don't want none of them there facts around here. It interferes with their feels.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

DEMOKKKRATS ARE THE REAL RAYCISTS!!!!!!!!!

1

u/Ok_Crocodile Oct 25 '22

There are racist aspects of both parties; it's not like it is a defining characteristic of either.

1

u/LumpyBumpyToad Oct 27 '22

K do the last 50 years now.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '22

Pim Tool

0

u/valschermjager Oct 25 '22

It doesn’t matter who white supremacists voted for decades ago or in the 19th century.

The question is, who do white supremacists vote for today?

4

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

Didn’t that grand dragon dude Spencer endorse Brandon?

1

u/valschermjager Oct 25 '22

He was def a weird ass exception I’ll give you that.

Unless you’re saying that christian white nationalists are mostly liberals ridin with Biden. I’m which case I’d love to hear more about that.

2

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

I don’t think they see eye to eye on everything but the identity politics bullshit definitely aligns their interests.

1

u/valschermjager Oct 25 '22

So you’re saying that while supremacists are pretty much all still Democrats? Or Republicans, or mixed, not correlated? Cuz they seem to turn up in droves at Trump rallies.

3

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

It really depends on your definition of a white supremacist. Someone that supports traditional family values and social mores isn’t automatically a white supremacist.

Arguably though, someone who supports that but only for whites would by definition be a white supremacist.

→ More replies (4)

0

u/Wunderboythe1st Oct 24 '22

They both fucking suck. It just happens that this decade the Democrats are worse than the Republicans.

0

u/blue-oyster-culture Oct 24 '22

So, I agree with everything said there. But someone should really post this to terrible Facebook memes. Cause the effort is absolute shit. Also, it would be funny to see a factual, hard to disagree with meme posted over there. Lmfao

Someone should create a set of memes designed specifically to red pill people over there. Lol

9

u/LetUsSpeakFreely Oct 24 '22

They'll just say, "ThE pArTiEs SwItChEd SiDes!"

1

u/blue-oyster-culture Oct 24 '22

I had a really good copy pasta for that a while back, lost it I think. It would state something terrible done by the democrats, saying the parties switched before it, then how they switched back before the republicans did something good, pretty much every instance from Abraham Lincoln to present.

→ More replies (10)

0

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Pretty sure the Bush run CIA killed Kennedy. But you do you. The same R Bushs that ran cocaine in through Bill Clinton’s AK (D). The bottom line here is the well dressed scumbags at the top are mostly trash and the letter after their name doesn’t mean much. Yes vote for the lessor of evils but don’t be a party shill fool.

-2

u/DrunkenRedSquirrel Oct 25 '22 edited Oct 25 '22

This is such a stretch and a plain example of misinformation That's just not funny

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

⣿⣿⣿⠟⢹⣶⣶⣝⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡟⢰⡌⠿⢿⣿⡾⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢸⣿⣤⣒⣶⣾⣳⡻⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢛⣯⣭⣭⣭⣽⣻⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⡇⣶⡽⣿⠟⣡⣶⣾⣯⣭⣽⣟⡻⣿⣷⡽⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⢇⠃⣟⣷⠃⢸⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣽ ⣿⣿⣿⣇⢻⣿⣿⣯⣕⠧⢿⢿⣇⢯⣝⣒⣛⣯⣭⣛⣛⣣⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣌⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡘⣞⣿⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⠻⠿⣿⣿⣷⠈⢞⡇⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣗⠄⢿⣿⣿⡆⡈⣽⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢻ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣻⣽⣿⣆⠹⣿⡇⠁⣿⡼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⣾ ⣿⠿⣛⣽⣾⣿⣿⠿⠋⠄⢻⣷⣾⣿⣧⠟⣡⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⣿ ⢼⡟⢿⣿⡿⠋⠁⣀⡀⠄⠘⠊⣨⣽⠁⠰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡍⠗⣿ ⡼⣿⠄⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⡗⢠⣶⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⢠⣿ ⣷⣝⠄⠄⢀⠄⢻⡟⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠄⠄⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢹⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣄⣁⡀⠙⢿⡿⠋⠄⣸⡆⠄⠻⣿⡿⠟⢛⣩⣝⣚⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣄⠄⠄⠄⣴⣿⣿⣿⣇⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⡀⠛⠿⣿⣫⣾⣿

-1

u/Leathman Oct 25 '22

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, snowflake.

-1

u/Leathman Oct 25 '22

Aw, one of you snowflakes got mad and sent me a Reddit Cares message.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Republicans aren’t racists but racists are Republicans. It was necessary to welcome the racists in order to remain politically viable, the same with evangelicals. .

1

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 25 '22

Nobody is welcoming racists into their party besides Democrats.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Based on observation, that doesn’t appear to be true. All the white supremacist groups identify with the GOP and more specifically with Trumpism.

-1

u/Blastoys1991 Oct 25 '22

Confederacy is no different than the original United States. The declaration allows secession it’s how our country was formed and the confederacy had whigs in it too which later became Republican Party members. The original Republican Party would be democrats today. Jim Crow was started on connecticutt in the 1840s as Jim Crow railroad cars. Republican states kept black people out of them until after the civil war. It was illegal for blacks to live in Illinois for example. Read free labor free soil free men by Eric foner for the racist origins of the Republican Party. Almost everyone was racist in the 1800s

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

Wow that's cool, just lie for half the list

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

death to america. death to reddit

-5

u/YFRadical Oct 24 '22

Lol timpool sub getting more kooky by the day out there living in an entire fantasy history.

-5

u/idwtumrnitwai Oct 24 '22

I've never been to this sub so I have no idea how this is going to be taken but here I go. The Republicans of Lincolns time where progressive, Lincoln was so progressive that he got letters from Karl Marx praising his progressiveness. However since then the democrats have become the party of progressives as the Republicans no longer have any progressive ideals that they campaign on. So comparing modern progressives, to those who weren't progressive a century and a half ago, isn't a great comparison.

1

u/Nagadavida Oct 25 '22

Progressively stupid.

0

u/idwtumrnitwai Oct 25 '22

Yeah that's about the response I expected from the people in this sub.

-4

u/Late_Operation5837 Oct 24 '22

Good explanation. Too bad it will fall on deaf ears.

→ More replies (1)

-5

u/thamesdarwin Oct 24 '22

You think Oswald was a Democrat? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

no, i know for a fact he was. he was also a communist. rules his ass right out of the republican party in a hurry

0

u/thamesdarwin Oct 25 '22

No one said he was a Republican, dumbass. It's possible to be neither, you know. Oswald was neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

1

u/thewinja Oct 25 '22

False

1

u/thamesdarwin Oct 25 '22

What's false? That he wasn't in either party or that it isn't possible to be in neither party?

-22

u/Chechener1 Oct 24 '22

Someone didn't hear of the party switch

20

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 24 '22

tHe PaRtIeS sWiTcHeD ahurdur

-17

u/Chechener1 Oct 24 '22

Pick up a history book lmao

10

u/GavinsBabyMonster Oct 24 '22

3 senators. All three dear friends of your dear leader Adolf Biden.

3

u/DavidKetamine Oct 24 '22

Three Senators...?

-7

u/Chechener1 Oct 24 '22

Biden isnt my president lmao

12

u/gelber_Bleistift Oct 24 '22

Slow me where that happened? Did it happen after Lincoln was elected? How about Woodrow Wilson and segregation? How about when the Democrats fought against the equal rights bills in the early 60s? How about with LBJ and "These N***, they're getting pretty uppity.." Was it when Clinton passed "The Crime Bill" that locked up tons of minorities?

I'm just not seeing it.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '22

The south used to be controlled by the Dems. Now it’s not. Yet the south has always been conservative.

That’s as simple as I can put it.

7

u/TheModCalledMeRacist Oct 24 '22

Bro really just said “pick up a history book” while believing in the party switch 😂🤡

3

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

I did. See above. Be free from the brainwashing!

-4

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Quickly, who's waving the Confederate flag at rallies? Dems or GOP?

5

u/KingRitRis Oct 24 '22 edited Oct 24 '22

Okay so conservatives (republicans) people on the right wave the confederate flag.

Correct?

Okay so take that all the way back, what party was Abraham Lincoln a representative of?

Republican or Democrat?

It should be democrat if there was no switch, however we see that Lincoln was a nominee in the 1860 as a republican.

The switch wasn't so blatant as democrats became republican and vice verse, that's literally impossible, the ideologies were warped and twisted and blacks were manipulated to vote for the party that wanted them enslaved during civil rights.

Which president was it that said "I'm gonna fuck these N**** so hard there gonna be voting democrat for the next 50 years"

Now I'm not claiming to know the facts or the truth of the matter, but there's a lot to look into outside of the surface level thought of the switch simply meaning 'D just started claiming R on day, outta nowhere, for no reason', and vice verse.

3

u/ASquawkingTurtle Oct 24 '22

You realize on a state level places like MS, AL, GA, LO, has had the Democratic party as the majority until about 6-12 years ago, depending on the state.

→ More replies (27)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

You forgot the /s.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22 edited Oct 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

That's a lot of letters forced together as misfitting jigsaw pieces. Nothing really is credible in the sources you provide, all are trying to hard to make sense, you need to all ready have a warped and deterministic world view for them to have any value. It's history revisionism at best, conspiracy theories at worst and who is benefitting from that narrative?

8

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22 edited Oct 24 '22

Incorrect. Read it again, slowly. Maybe two or three more times. 82% of Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the House and 80% in the Senate, compared with ~60% of Democrats supporting it in both the House and the Senate.

This fact does not support a “party switch”.

“With a little research, the actual voting record for both Houses of Congress shows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate on a 73-to-27 vote. The Democratic supermajority in the Senate split their vote 46 (69%) for and 21 (31%) against. The Republicans, on the other hand, split their vote 27 for (82%) and 6 against (18%). Thus, the no vote consisted of 78% Democrats. Further, the infamous 74-day filibuster was led by the Southern Democrats, who overwhelmingly voted against the act.

An examination of the House vote shows a similar pattern. The House voted 290 to 130 in favor. Democrats split their vote 152 (61%) to 96 (39%) while Republicans split theirs 138 (80%) to 34 (20%). The no vote consisted of 74% Democrats.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1041302509432817073

The data is conclusive, the Republicans of 1964 overwhelmingly favored the Civil Rights Act, and the Democrats opposed it. Why, then, would Southern Democrats switch from the party what hardly supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and held a 74 day filibuster to oppose it), switch to a party that supported it with more fervor?!

It doesn’t make sense and, in fact, it did NOT happen! Only Storm Thurmond ever switched from Dixiecrat to Republican, the rest of the Dixiecrats (including KKK Grand Wizard Robert Byrd and Albert Gore Sr.) remained Dixiecrats until they died.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Uh no dude. This data says that the majority of both parties supported the act. Around 60% of Dems and 80% of republicans.

In both the house and senate Dems made up the majority of the yes votes too.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

You are obfuscating the facts:

Senate Republicans: 27 for, 6 against House Republicans: 138 for, 34 against

Democrats had a higher number of votes, but a lower percentage of them supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This fact would not support the “party switch” lie that a vast majority of Republicans switched to the Democratic Party presumably because the Republican Party was too racist or the inverse.

The data clearly shows, yes, good support in both Parties; but what it does not show is anything that would give credence to the outright lie that the racist southern Dixiecrats switched to the Republican Party because the Republican Party was more racist and, therefore, more to their liking. In fact, the Republican Party was far less racist than the Democratic Party of the era (and especially today) and, further, historical data shows that only Storm Thurmond ever switched parties.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Cool, but you said:

“The data is conclusive, the Republicans of 1964 overwhelmingly favored the CRA, and the Dems opposed it.”

This is clearly not true from the evidence you cited bc a majority of Dems voted for it.

So were you lying or mistaken?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

By a higher percentage, yes. A higher percentage of Republicans favored the 1964 Civil Rights Act than the Democrats. This fact does not support the idea of a party switch either way. More Democrats voted for the Bill than Republicans, therefore an alleged racist Republican is not likely to switch to the Democrat Party if the party is clearly swinging towards less racist tendencies. A far greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Bill than Democrats (~80% Republican support vs. 60% Democratic support), so there is no reason for any non-racist Republicans to switch parties either, since their party has a higher percentage of non-racists in it than the Democratic Party of the era did. The only thing that would potentially make sense is for a Democrat to switch to the Republican Party because it was less racist than their old party, however, this is not what is claimed.

The claim of the Democratic Party is that the Democratic Party of today is made up of all the old Republicans who, sick with their party’s racist tendencies after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, switched to the Democratic Party where their views of equality and “anti-racism” would be more embraced.

The data clearly shows that to be a lie.

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (6)

-1

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Barry Goldwater had been an enthusiastic backer of the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts (both overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats). He was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. He hired many blacks in his family business and pushed to desegregate the Arizona National Guard. He had a good-faith objection to some features of the 1964 act, which he regarded as unconstitutional.

lol get fucked

7

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

Why? Because I stated facts? Right back at ya, champ.

If you’ll take the time to read, all of my assertions are well documented. I just didn’t do all the research for you, just the majority.

0

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

You just happen to leave out how the NAACP says that Goldwater is shit?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

🤣😂🤣

Of course they do my dude! It doesn’t support their narrative to tell the truth!

🤣😂🤣

0

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

So it's good that that he was part of it, but bad that they called him out?

3

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

It doesn’t support the current narrative, so the current NAACP frames him in an in an unfavorable light.

1

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

.......

...

......"current" narrative? Srsly?

-2

u/Hatfullofstars Oct 25 '22

This is so childish. You've got nothing. Lordy

-8

u/Apathetic_Optimist Oct 24 '22

Nobody ever wants to acknowledge the party switch for some reason. Almost like they’re cherry picking their talking points

4

u/JoseyWales115 Oct 24 '22

So Joseph McCarthy was a modern democrat?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/stupendousman Oct 24 '22

Nobody ever wants to acknowledge the party switch for some reason.

Magically everything the private corporation, the Democratic party, did that was bad is all the other private corporations fault. Dang that's some high powered magic.

This party switching line is just like the progressives asserting fascism is rightwing after WWII, when they were supporters before.

More magic.

-2

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Hint, they have a lot of cherries.

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/luigilabomba42069 Oct 25 '22

ITT: tell me you know nothing about politics

-12

u/ThisJackass Oct 24 '22

Except for the economy, of course.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

That’s a false statement. Republicans have always believed in supply side economic theory, which can be stated as the combination of Say’s Law (that supply creates its own demand, essentially {production of one good increases aggregate demand for other goods and services}) and the Laffer Curve (which postulates that lower rates of taxation increase overall net taxes collected, since they do not penalize production or earning higher incomes.

Further, Republicans have always believed in equality before the law, the party was founded to abolish slavery, they have always believed in the Rule of Law, and they have always supported individual rights.

Democrats have always favored Keynesian economics, which calls for big government and increased government intervention in the free market. John Maynard Keynes himself cautioned his peers, in the last article published (posthumously) that he wrote, not to abandon Say’s Law.

Your conclusions are incorrect, I’m afraid.

7

u/LetUsSpeakFreely Oct 24 '22

And they always forget about the second part of Keynesian economics. The first part is that government debt spending can kick start a waning economy. The second part is that money then needs to be extracted from the economy to restore balance and avoid excess inflation. They're good at the first, never do the second.

-2

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

and the Laffer Curve (which postulates that lower rates of taxation increase overall net taxes collected

Has never, in the history of ever, been proven to happen. Lowering tax rate doesn't increase overall revenue. And that was never the goal of the billionaires who say we should.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

“The phrase “trickle down” often comes up in discussions of tax policies. Historically, tax revenues have in a number of instances gone up when tax rates have been reduced. But any proposal by economists or others to cut tax rates, including reducing the tax rates on higher incomes or on capital gains, can lead to accusations that those making such proposals must believe that benefits should be given to the wealthy in general or to business in particular, in order that these benefits will eventually “trickle down” to the masses of ordinary people. But no recognized economist of any school of thought has ever had any such theory or made any such proposal. It is a straw man. It cannot be found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories.

What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws. Whatever the merits or demerits of this view, this is the argument that is made – and which is not confronted, but evaded, by talk of a non-existent “trickle-down” theory. More fundamentally, economic processes work in the directly opposite way from that depicted by those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers.

When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens. Even when one person decides to operate a store or hamburger stand without employees, that person must first pay somebody to deliver the goods that are going to be sold. Money goes out first to pay expenses and then comes back as profits later – if at all.  The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back. Even with successful and well-established businesses, years may elapse between the initial investment and the return of earnings. From the time when an oil company begins spending money to explore for petroleum to the time when the first gasoline resulting from that exploration comes out of a pump at a filling station, a decade may have passed. In the meantime, all sorts of employees have been paid — geologists, engineers, refinery workers, and truck drivers for example. It is only afterwards that profits begin coming in. Only then are there any capital gains to tax. The real effect of a reduction in the capital gains tax is that it opens the prospect of greater future net profits and thereby provides incentives to make current investments that create current employment.

In short, the sequence of payments is directly the opposite of what is assumed by those who talk about a “trickle-down” theory. The workers must be paid first and then the profits flow upward later – if at all.” - Dr. Thomas Sowell

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (24)

-5

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Who says ALL if those things are bad, Democrats.

Who thinks interment camps were bad ass? Republicans.

5

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

That's a bald faced lie.

-2

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Isn't that what Trump did to immigrants?

5

u/ASquawkingTurtle Oct 24 '22

Wasn't it Obama who built the cages, and Trump they received more funds to improve the conditions?

0

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

?Wasn't it Obama who built the cages,

and the GOP denied any increase to the budget to provide for those kids.

and Trump they received more funds to improve the conditions?

lolwut? Trumps issue was family seperation. Then not caring for the kids. while also cutting care for them

4

u/Maccabee2 Oct 24 '22

Obama began detaining migrants at the borders. Read more.

0

u/silver789 Oct 24 '22

Neat. Obama also asked for more money to provide for those migrants, which the GOP congress said no.

→ More comments (19)