Someone DEMONSTRATE to me that the parties did not switch. go on

someone DEMONSTRATE to me that the parties did not switch. go on.

Attached: democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms.png (1200x630, 103K)

Other urls found in this thread:

workersrights.org/freports/WRC
amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/palm-oil-global-brands-profiting-from-child-and-forced-labour/
cips.org/en/supply-management/news/2018/november/brands-attacked-over-palm-oil-slavery/
telesurenglish.net/news/Brazilian-Coca-Cola-Manufacturer-Accused-of-Slave-Labor-20160826-0007.html
theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/north-koreans-working-state-sponsored-slaves-qatar
americanyawp.com/reader/the-sectional-crisis/1860-republican-party-platform/
prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

So the Democrats are willing to give up JFK, FDR, and Wilson?

I completely agree.
An emerging stance from the Republican party is that all states should manage themselves so that people can live as they see fit.

What does that even mean?

The Democrats are still the party of slavery, they just moved their slaves to different continents and called it globalism.
Here is a fun party game, when an advertisement campaign for a consumer goods company that espouses the American liberal's viewpoints like Nike's Kaepernick ads are shown, go on Google and see how long it takes to discover that the company in question either currently profits from or profited from slave labor within the past 5 to 10 years. The longest it has ever taken me is four minutes. To start with Nike, within the past 5 years they have relied on child slave labor in Vietnam.
workersrights.org/freports/WRC Assessment re Hansae Vietnam 12.6.16.pdf
TBC.

You a stupid motherfucker b

Gillette recently had an ad campaign titled, The Best Men Can Be. Its parent company, Proctor & Gamble, also had another ad campaign called The Talk in 2017. Somehow, neither of P&G's ad campaigns advertise that they use slave-harvested palm oil in their products.
While on the topic of palm oil, Ben & Jerry's is celebrated by American liberals for their quirky flavor names and their recent pro-legalization of marijuanna tweets on twitter. Their parent company, Unilever, uses the exact same slaves as P&G does.
amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/palm-oil-global-brands-profiting-from-child-and-forced-labour/
cips.org/en/supply-management/news/2018/november/brands-attacked-over-palm-oil-slavery/

is this a complete sentence?

Democrats simply pander to, weaponize, enfeeble, and infantilize one identity group before hopping on to the next. Then they project their failed past on to Republicans.
Republicans 1860: equality of opportunity, no gibs.
Republicans 1924: equality of opportunity, no gibs.
Republicans 1964: equality of opportunity, no gibs.
Republicans 2019: equality of opportunity, no gibs.

If Democrats are saying the "parties switched" after Nixon, then they are, by extension, saying that Presidents they love like FDR are actually closer to Republicans

Much more of a shuffle than a switch. Many early 20th C GOP would still be welcome among the GOP. Same goes for Dems.

Dems experienced a shakeup 1945-1964, and GOP got aggressive about grabbing up disillusioned dems 1968-1990s.

Coca-Cola had a nice ad campaign called America the Beautiful that ran during the Super Bowl. Nothing in the ad suggested how they kept sponsoring FIFA when it came out that they were using North Korean slaves in Qatar to build World Cup stadiums. Nor did they talk about the slaves they're accused of owning in Brazil. telesurenglish.net/news/Brazilian-Coca-Cola-Manufacturer-Accused-of-Slave-Labor-20160826-0007.html
theguardian.com/global-development/2014/nov/07/north-koreans-working-state-sponsored-slaves-qatar

>someone DEMONSTRATE to me that the parties did not switch
The burden of proof's on the Democrats to prove it happened.

>muh Democrat presidents who'd be Republicans by now
Can trivially be explained away with a swing to the left instead of a switch which both passes the Occam's razor test and is supported by recent data.

Attached: swing left.jpg (755x1200, 95K)

Just read the two platforms.
>americanyawp.com/reader/the-sectional-crisis/1860-republican-party-platform/
>1860
>Everyone is equal
>Slavery bad
>Disunion bad
>Deploying the national guard to states bad
>Kansas should be a state
>Homesteading good
>National exchanges and federal influence on the economy good
>Decreasing immigration, or hurting immigrants bad
>Federally funded infrastructure good

>prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
>2016
>Americans are better than everyone else in the world
>Sexual slavery bad
>We have too many laws
>Debt bad
>Taxes bad
>Regulations bad
>Federal spending bad
>Immigration should be harder
>Gay marriage and abortions bad
>Private education and healthcare good
>Bigger army really, really good

A few things like opinion on government spending have switched, but mostly people care about completely different things today. The single biggest thing is that Republicans are now the anti-minority rights party, and the Democrats are now the pro-minority rights party. That single issue alone completely explains how the Southern U.S. flipped which party they vote for.

How do the people who say the parties didn't "switch" explain Republicans rejecting the Civil Rights Act? So you're saying Repubs risked their lives to free blacks only to spit in their face later? That doesn't make much sense. Parties and their ideologies change over time. It's that simple. You can see changes happening between parties today. Trump for example took on a very populist approach something Democrats, and not Republicans, were known for. This is one of the issues with the two party system. They are so broad that within them you have factions that all believe (or claim to) different things, but each party has to appeal or pander to as big a base as possible in order to defeat the other. The whole thing turns into a circus.

Not a single Democrat ever stood before congress, the house, anywhere and said "I'm sorry for creating the KKK, and our racist past, I am now converting to a Republican."

"Parties swapped ideology" has been debunked so many times and is literal propaganda damage control in 2019 to not lose the minority vote for the DNC.

Attached: IMG_2432.jpg (800x800, 128K)

they did, that's why burgers should vote republican (as a stalling measure whilst they are working on a fascist coup, of course).
hating niggers is a popular platform in the states, and right now, the republicans are closer to it (not on it, mind you) than the democrats.

The so-called "switch" happened after FDR, and there isn't any sort of case to be made that FDR was conservative.

Republicanism has always been about upholding minority rights despite the will of the majority. That went for the majority views on slavery leading up to and following abolition as well as the majority wanting gun control today.

Dead on

Attached: partyplatforms.png (1230x844, 225K)

And they still think they own black people.

If JFK ran today he'd be a Republican for sure. He was a pro-life Catholic, a veteran, and a lifetime NRA member.

Gay marriage wasn’t a thing in the 1860’s and immigration was from Europe.

Attached: 8F3229C5-8F83-4885-AA90-4C93517ECF31.jpg (213x255, 9K)

Disregard my last post I suck cocks!!!!!!!

{user was banned for this post}

>Prove a negative
No