This thread seems like a lot of fun!
22vkx7.gif (click to show)

I didn't make this one (except for adding the bottom line), not claiming credit for it, but felt it was appropriate to add to this post.

Literally. The top image of the KKK are conservatives and the bottom protesting gun violence are liberals. The irony is palpable.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Are+republicans+the+old+democrats%3F

I guess he didn't 'switch parties'?

[image deleted]

I'll just leave this REAL picture here... You see, there are these computer programs out there, that are used to dramatically alter photographs... One is called 'Photoshop', perhaps you may have heard of it before... https://youtu.be/-y8P3DvJvP0

I was wrong touche sir.
Makes sense since I've never seen that image until just today.

You are upvoted, and complimented for being totally reasonable... Yes, my first thought was that this would have been seen, not just over the last couple years, but even over the last 30 yrs -- since Trump has been a public figure for several decades... Plus, this would be NYC, and there's no way anyone would/could pose for such a picture and not expect it to be discovered. Kudos. People need to keep in mind that every time they come out with a hoax like this, they greatly hurt their own credibility.... Hey, more than half the memes out there are Photoshopped, but it's usually done in a deliberately obvious manner... But these kind of pictures are meant to deceive.

I bet you shared that around facebook.
Dont realize yet everything you believe in is FAKE NEWS?

What I find particularly despicable about the above altered picture is that it attacks persons who are deceased, and cannot even defend themselves.... The person doing the photo-editing had to know that

I didn't know that. It was clumsily posted I admit. Though showing a flaw in an argument doesn't imply that the reverse is true, or even that my conclusion is wrong.

Here's your fake news bro
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1964232273608253/

Nah I didn't. But you're still going to have to substantiate your fake news claim.

Imma just take this image to use later.

PS and baddly done!

Please don't take my word for it.
Google: republican democrat party switch
Sorry about facts. Telling me I lie doesn't mean I did :(

Sorry that half-truths presented in a way intended to be wildly misleading is still a lie.

People switch parties for lots of reasons. Racist/Segregationists did not move from the Democrat party to the Republican party because the latter was more amicable to those ideologies. It never happened. William Fulbright, Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. were lifelong democrats. George Wallace was a Democrat until he had to create his own party so he could get his ass kicked in a Presidential campaign.

Here's some factual history for you, presented with context;

Prior to 1860, there were two political parties; The Democrat party (officially known as the 'Democratic Republicans'), and the Whig party. The former advocated state's rights, while the latter favored a centralized power base. When the terrorist John Brown put the issue of abolition into the national consciousness, people became aware that their party politicians were a mish-mash of positions of the issue. At that time, the small gov't, state's rights advocates also happened to be the pro-slavery crowd.

Enter the Republican party. Established on the platform of abolition, they quickly drew abolitionists from both 'establishment' parties into their ranks. The Whig party all but ceased to exist, and the pro-state's rights (pro-slavery) Democrat party absorbed the remaining small-government, state's rights (slavery) Whigs into their ranks.

In the decades after the Civil War, Lincoln's (arguable unconstitutional, but necessary) proclamation and other Federal efforts to forcibly end slavery and segregation had an unfortunate side effect; States rights had eroded away and power was increasingly centered in Washington.

Fast-forward 50 years. Woodrow Wilson and FDR in particular, enacted sweeping changes that further empowered the Federal Gov't, and began to transform the US into a welfare state. World War II gave FDR another excuse to further engorge Washington DC's power over the states.

Moving ahead to the Kennedy and LBJ era, Certain Democrats, such as Strom Thurmond, had either had a change of mind about segregation or realized that it was a lost cause, left the Democrat party and joined the GOP because the swelling power of Washington and welfare dependence were rapidly becoming the more important issue.

So you see, when you actually look at ALL the facts, IN historical context, and not just the ones you've cherry-picked to support your fallacious assertions, it paints a very, very different picture.

Again, context.

Strom Thurmond was the poster child for the Dixiecrat movement. And while he was an outspoken segregationist in the 40's and 50's, and as a Democrat he opposed and filibustered the '64 Civil Rights Act alongside fellow Democrat Robert Byrd, he moved to the Republican party after that, and eventually even hired a black man to his staff in 1971.

While I cannot speak for the man's heart and mind, one could make the argument that his positions on certain issues evolved from supporting segregation to opposing runaway Federal power-grabbing.

Recall that the state's rights movement was born out of the defense of a state's right to legalize slavery. Once slavery was taken off the table, and institutionalized racism was incrementally removed from the argument, it became possible to advocate for state's rights without automatically being tagged as a segregationist also.

Here's the bigger question that I think motivated a lot of the party re-alignments and platform changes that occurred between the 1860's and the 1960's...

Should the Federal Government be able to dictate policy to a state, regardless of the level of egregiousness? Should Washington DC have the power to enforce the abolition of something like slavery or abortion even when half the states or half the population doesn't agree? Does such a dictate violate the 9th and 10th Amendments? This is an argument this country has been having for two and a half centuries. We fought a bloody war over the question about midway through.

https://youtu.be/XHgOLKrscCM Here's a little bit about the 'party switch'.... But everyone has to use some common sense... It's a ridiculous notion that a racist party would be able to get together with a non-racist party, and somehow agree to swap names.... A LOT of people somehow believe it that way, but it makes no sense whatsoever... Why on Earth would non-racists want to take the name of racists?

Not swapped names, swapped policies. A negligible amount of people in government switched sides but that is not what is meant by the switch. It's a bit of a stawman, respectfully.

technically there was a swap but, to say it was about racism isn't quite right. It was about unionism (think Lincoln and Grant). In a lot of other policies the two parties only changed slowly and incrementally and aren't in opposition to their old views. The only real example of that is if you assume the Democrats are the Democratic-Republicans still post Jackson, in which case they're currently opposed to every principal and concept of the original party and are much closer to neo-Federalists.

Democratic platform 1932 socialism and big govt. Democratic platform 2018 socialism and big govt. They switched so hard it is unbelievable

Actually, at that point Republicans were mostly big government.

You know you are talking about one of fdr's elections? I think you might want to look into it.

Sorry, thought that said 1832. During 1932, the speedy shift was 98% complete

If the shift was complete by 1932 then why do people discount the Republican party as the party of MLK Jr? That was thirty years later. Either the switch being discussed happened after the civil rights movement, which history does not support, or before it(which seems to be your implication), in which case republicans ARE the party of civil rights.

Yeah.. no - The left is intrinsically more socialist so that's not exactly an exercise in astuteness. But in 1932 the republican party was the left.

In 1932 republicans were the left? It was their opponent who started social security and many of the social programs we have today, and they were against it then just like they are today.

And if people suddenly started protesting for peace under the name of the Nazi party, would that be ok too?

Dinesh D'Sousa (like him or not) has an interesting take on 'the switch' https://youtu.be/XHgOLKrscCM

Interesting is one word for it. Inaccurate is another. Wrong is another.

Why is it wrong?

The switch was in policy. I'm not tied to a party, I'll concede that the dems were racist, that's the whole point. They switched policies and now the republicans are the racist party.

It's not an appeal to authority unless he appeals to an authority to support a claim.

It's a little grey but okay. I just figured he was pointing to the words that Dinesh said rather than inferring that because he said it, that makes it true.

An argument is right because Dinesh says so: Appeal to authority
Dinesh has presented what I think is a good argument: Not a fallacy

It's not a fallacy to cite a source, only to wield the source as an authority.

He even gave the caveat "like him or not" so that we wouldn't prematurely dismiss what he said, just because it was Dinesh D'Sousa. I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing the argument from authority here.

Not sure.

if the Parties flipped in 1964... why are JFK and FDR still the Patron Saint's of the Party? (as they obviously Pre-date the Flip)

They are?
Hmmmm.

Ahh! Beeeecaaaaause they are representatives of that party?

did you have a seizure?...

You can say that....