DEMOCRATS MARCH AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS 2018 1925 | image tagged in memes | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
8,158 views, 168 upvotes, Made by kingtiger 3 months ago memes
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups
DEMOCRATS NOW | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
This thread seems like a lot of fun!
i.imgflip.com/22vkx7.gif (click to show)
reply
10 ups
(ALSO KNOWN AS "KLANBAKE") | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
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.
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
1 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
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
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
LIE OFTEN AND LOUDLY ENOUGH EVENTUALLY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
THE "EXALTED CYCLOPS" | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
N | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
I guess he didn't 'switch parties'?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
1 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
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
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I was wrong touche sir.
Makes sense since I've never seen that image until just today.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
1 up
I'm definitely no supporter of Trump, but it was pretty obvious that that was a photoshop (and poorly done at that)
reply
1 up, 3 replies
I bet you shared that around facebook.
Dont realize yet everything you believe in is FAKE NEWS?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
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
reply
0 ups
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.
reply
0 ups
Here's your fake news bro
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1964232273608253/
reply
0 ups
Nah I didn't. But you're still going to have to substantiate your fake news claim.
reply
0 ups
Imma just take this image to use later.
reply
0 ups
PS and baddly done!
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
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 :(
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
My understanding is that in the 1940s, the Democrat Party adopted some policies that opposed racism. The racist Democrats then broke away and formed the Dixiecrats, and the Dixiecrats later joined the Republicans. I don't know this for a fact, but it's what I've heard.

Obviously something happened between the 1920s and now.
reply
0 ups
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.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
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?
reply
1 up
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.
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Democratic platform 1932 socialism and big govt. Democratic platform 2018 socialism and big govt. They switched so hard it is unbelievable
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Actually, at that point Republicans were mostly big government.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You know you are talking about one of fdr's elections? I think you might want to look into it.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Sorry, thought that said 1832. During 1932, the speedy shift was 98% complete
reply
0 ups
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.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
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.
reply
0 ups
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.
reply
2 ups
And if people suddenly started protesting for peace under the name of the Nazi party, would that be ok too?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Dinesh D'Sousa (like him or not) has an interesting take on 'the switch' https://youtu.be/XHgOLKrscCM
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Interesting is one word for it. Inaccurate is another. Wrong is another.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why is it wrong?
reply
3 ups
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.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
It's not an appeal to authority unless he appeals to an authority to support a claim.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
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.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Who was that who deleted their account?
0 ups
Not sure.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
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)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
They are?
Hmmmm.

Ahh! Beeeecaaaaause they are representatives of that party?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
did you have a seizure?...
reply
0 ups
You can say that....
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm not one of them, I'm a human bean
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Lol
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm a far left leaning fiscal socialist who doesn't want to take away your guns.
We should stay on topic.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
lol you're fine :^)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Hi DerpRox,

I deleted my original 2 comments out of respect for you.

We will let the record show that I was wrong.

Fight the good fight. I am with YOU.

Go get 'em!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh you didn't have to do that. When people have a discussion in the pursuit of truth, those who are open to having their mind changed are the sole beneficiaries. We can only hope to be persuaded when we are wrong, so that we don't have to be wrong, anymore.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Hi DerpRox,

I like what you wrote.

I didn't want to distract from the real topic, so I deleted the erroneous stuff.

Still learning how to interact online...

Anyway, looking forward to more of your output. I took a quick look yesterday and liked what I saw. :-)
reply
1 up
Lol dude you're not serious. =D
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Ah ha. So conservatism is good but the Democrats were bad even when they were the conservative party. Republican logic strikes again.
reply
1 up
The Klan may have been a predominantly Democrat organization, but it was also 100% Christian (Protestant, specifically). You could NOT join the KKK unless you were a white heterosexual Protestant.

Brace yourselves, No True Scotsman fallacies are coming
reply
1 up
Except it's not just white people in the second picture, but obviously placing some restrictions on who owns guns makes everybody prone to being victims of the totalitarian dictatorship.
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Wait...! Ha found a mistake, you've labelled the wrong years.
reply
0 ups
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/009/832/dafuq-did-i-just-read-meme.jpg
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
So true.
reply
0 ups
Funny how it seems
Always In Time but never in line for dreams
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
The KKK are Democrats?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Yup
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
oh
reply
7 ups
I should clarify, the KKK was /founded/ by democrats, but democrats these days like to go on about "the switch" as if that absolves the party of the atrocities it committed, or as if they're not still racist, but they just hide it better now.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Nope they switched platforms.. The republicans are the old democrats.
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
If this is what you believe happened: i.imgflip.com/276m7e.jpg (click to show)
then you don't even know the proper narrative of the "party switch" argument!
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Belief is irrelevant.

Fact are facts.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Now if only we had a way to determine what the facts are..
reply
0 ups
As long as you call 'the other side' "trolls" and "snowflakes," your case is proven!
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It makes less sense than as if McDonald's and Burger King got together and decided to switch their names..... Dinesh D'Souza has an interesting explanation (and be careful! he's an Indian-American, so don't give him any racism!) https://youtu.be/XHgOLKrscCM
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Look,Democrats AREN'T marching to take away second amendment rights! A LOT of Republicans are just as sick of school shootings as we are! FYI MANY Dems carry guns for personal protection. We just don't carry assault rifles! We don't see why that much firepower is NEEDED for personal protection-unless you are expecting a zombie apocalypse?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
The republican party actually was the party of King. In those days the Republican party represented the left.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Liberals these days are pissing all over Dr. King's dreams, that's how. Especially BLM.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
He's not trying to keep Mexicans, or ANY legal immigrants out, he's just trying to keep /illegal/ immigrants out. Oddly enough, Mexico did the same thing along THEIR southern border.

You're the ones who keep calling them "brown people", highlighting the veiled racism of the left. Dr. King wanted us all to just be "people", not "black people" and "brown people" and "white people".

And you guys are quick to label them "white" when they don't go along with your agenda.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't disagree with you. As a fiscal socialist I'm tired of the identity politics from both sides.
reply
1 up
The only identity politics I hear from the right is citizen vs. Non citizen. Any time someone is bringing up race or color it seems to be from the left the vast majority of the time.
reply
0 ups
This issue transcends Right/Left;If YOUR kid was killed by a random nut with an assault rifle,you wouldn't be screaming about second amendment rights! You be screaming because someone violated your child's right to live! All we want is background checks for any history of violence & mental instability before someone is handed a weapon capable of wiping out multiple lives in seconds. In most cases the signs WERE there,& even had been documented, but noone stopped them from buying weapons that kill with minimum effort. We just want to be able to send our kids to school without someone with a grudge taking them out!
reply
0 ups
Of democrats of 1925 and 2018? :(
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
DEMOCRATS MARCH AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS; 1925; 2018
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back