American Chopper Argument

At least the Democrats try to fix the problems of wealth disparity among Blacks and Latinos. Republicans expect it to fix itself.

Fix the problem of wealth disparity? By signing in bills like the crime act of 1994? Yeah right. Nice try.

I tried lol

Sorry, no participation trophies here. Also, you "tried" just like Democratic politicians "tried" to combat racism while signing in bills that lock up minorities at disproportionately high levels for non-violent offenses.

But it's true.
Over time, the Republicans got more Conservative and the Democrats got more liberal.
You see, as both parties expanded past the North or the South of the East Coast, they picked up on the the Ideals of the States that gradually started supporting them. Thus they flip-flopped. And the original states they had support from did the same.
That's why they called Democrats back then "Southern Democrats", because they were only based in the South.
The Democratic Party was formed to create opposition against the Federalists. It's ideals are those of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

The party flip is a ludacris idea if you give it any rational thought;

The "party flip" is a disingenuous combination of two events (for context, every argument I've ever heard claims it happened between 1955 and 1965);

1.) The political parties stances on foreign policy; When Democrats claim the "political shift" started, was right about the time of the Korean war (so 1950 to 1953), yet the civil rights movement which took place for years *after* the Korean war ended (1954 to 1968), and the Democrats were still opposed to it up until the bitter end. So the narrative doesn't really work when you actually make and look at a timeline of events.

& 2.) Geographical location, like you briefly mentioned (This is going to be a long one, but if I just summed it up it wouldn't really do it justice, sorry in advance for the mini essay.); First and foremost, let's get one thing perfectly clear :*OBVIOSLY* the geographical locations in which political parties are located would change over time. Duh. Especially since one party - namely the Republicans - were very reactional to the Democrats (You know, with being founded to stop them, and all). Democrats in the South lost the civil rights movement and were mandated to desegregate, but many places refused to comply, so you had to have Republicans move in to southern states to ensure that Democrats were complying. Democrats didn't like having to treat blacks like people so over the next decade or so (it was really finalized in the 1970's, decades after the "party shift was said to have happened, further disproving the notion) they moved up north and to major cities to where -statistically speaking - there were less black people at the time. Despite the fact that the people who fought for civil rights were now over seeing desegregation in the southern states while the actual racist fled northward, the stigma of the south being racist and the north and major cities being safe havens stuck. (Combine that with democrats monopolizing the media and educational system to gaslight people into forgetting about their awful history - because remember, the only time they use the "party shift" as an excuse is when people call them out on their awful history, if no one does they try to act like it was the Republicans that did everything racist, even before the "party shift" - and they have have absolute power in cities like Chicago ever since the 1970's and have yet to fix any actual problems; because they made the problems.)

The Political Shift started in 1933 under FDR. Not the Korean War. That's when the Policies changed the most. People who say it started in Korea don't know what they are really talking about.
For the mini-essay, everything here is correct. I just wanted to add the geopolitical climate for fun.

"1933 under FDR"?

I'm going to be blunt here: That's a complete load of horseshit.

First and foremost, FDR was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler (hence the U.S not entering World War II until we had literally no other choice after Pearl Harbor) and being the main outside supplier of weapons to Germany - yeah, FDR would have only sold weapons to the Axis powers had he been given his way. They were both left wing Democratic Socialists who incited radical changes in the government by feeding off of past "failures" of former establishments and giving out false promises of returning to better times in exchange for getting rid of the people and policies they pinned the blame on. (much like modern cancel culture, but I digress).

Secondly, Literally the only thing that FDR did that effected the "party shift" (which again, literally everyone else hiding behind it but you claims happened in the mid 50's to mid 60's, nearly twenty years *after* you are claiming it happened. If anything, claiming the "party shift" happened in the 30's only hurts your argument even more because it only increases the amount of racist shit Democrats have done after it. What's next, saying the "party shift happened before the civil war"?) was the policies he enacted to end the great depression, which - on paper - doesn't sound like a bad thing inadvertently set the U.S on a pathway of entitled people demanding government handouts, national debt, lowering the over all standard of living for everyone, not just blacks.

Third of all; FDR , despite being praised by Democrats as one of the best presidents ever, was a corrupt, and vile man who is only admired because he gave out a bunch of free crap. Here are a list of a few of the horrible things he's done:

1.) Literally Rounding Up 120,000 Japanese Americans, and put them in Concentration Camps. (This goes hand in hand with him being sympathetic to Adolf Hitler)

2.) He was Pen Pals With Mussolini, the fascist Dictator of Italy in league with Adolf Hitler during World War II. Even going as far as to say "I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman,’ And the feeling was mutual, because Mussolini went on to say the following in reference to FDR “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

Ran out of space, here are the rest:

3.) His administration was Infested with Soviet-Russian Spies. Several top officials close to the President were supportive of the Soviet Regime. Some were almost certainly actual Soviet spies. One instance had soldiers be told to stand down when they witnessed American secrets being smuggled out of America on a plane bound for Russia, guarded by Soviet soldiers. This may be how the Soviet Union was able to make nuclear weapons.

4.) Roosevelt also started the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and limited licenses for radio broadcasting to six months. That way the government could revoke a license, and silence critics of FDR.

5.) The Roosevelt administration seized and destroyed crops while Americans starved with the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 forcing farmers.

Almost all of the things in this comment have been executed as well by one Republican Prez or another. Not only that, but many other great and praise international. leaders did the same exact things he did. As for the Great Depression, FD-wait, why are we arguing about FDR.

Because you tried to change the subject by bringing him into the discussion by making the BS claim that the "party shift" happened in the 1930's. Kind of like how you are trying to change the subject now because you realize you have no arguments to defend your point.

That's correct.
But the party shift still happened. I don't where or when.