So I've heard answers all over the board. Some people think that there was a definitive switch...

you realize spics were the majority of people who came here legally after 1965 and spics vote 70% democrat

democucks literally have to import their voters from other countries because they cant convince the native population to vote for them

Are you saying being a centrist means you're a pussy, or that most happen to be centrists and also pussies.

Not him or adding to his point, but both Asians and Muslims trend towards conservatives. Asians still do vote Republican a lot, but Muslims saw the bigotry against them and started voting more democrat.
The later, although I find most centrists are pussies

If immigrants voted for republicans even your most liberal democrat would shut down immigration in an instant, its just politics. Remember that only the democrats were mad at the cubans coming here because they all voted for Reagan lul

Preface that answer with the fact that in a Democracy, politicians have no incentive to get things done. Actually doing things is counterproductive to the true goal of being a politician: Staying elected to skim the cream off the top. This is ultimately the reason Machine politics came into play: By funneling money into a specific candidate various groups (industries, religions, ethnic groups, geographic communities, etc) realized they could use the Federal and State governments to draw wealth from people outside of the "clique" and funnel it towards themselves. They could do this before, but Machine politics let them do it more efficiently and in an institutionalized manner that simply wasn't possible. If you want a modern example of one of these institutionalized Machines, look at the Clinton Foundation (It's worth mentioning that ALL politics is Machine Politics in this day and age, by BOTH parties; the CF is just one that had its dirty laundry aired).

The Democrats gave these ethnic groups a reason to vote for them. What they gave them varies ethnic group to ethnic group (IE, organized labor to the Irish). The exception was Blacks up until LBJ came along, however. The problem was the Democrats were still saddled with the "Southern Democrats"; the last remnants of the former slave holding Democratic Party elites in the South. LBJ kicked them to the curb (they lacked both money and the votes to be campaign backers at the federal level and embraced Blacks. Nixon would adopt the Southern Strategy to court the newly disaffected Southerners.

>which represents a shift to the far right with the Republicans, which has lead to several reactionary movements associating with Republicans to this day.
The Tea Party was one step along the way. The Tea Party itself has roots in the contract with America, which has roots in the Reagan revolution, which itself was born out of the failed Goldwater bid for president.

The rise of the alt-right and a secular-nationalism has completely eclipsed the small government philosophy of Ayn Rand. Right-wingers these days are more interested in controlling brown people than they are in changing the economy to further benefit plutocrats.

>tl;dr Democrats are currently centrist pussies and Republicans have virtually lost all cohesion as a party and gone mad.
It all makes sense when you realize that the same donors are contributing to both parties, control both parties, and keep one around as the party of actively promoting their interests, with the other being the party of controlled opposition to present the illusion of choice

We need a new Ross Perot

So again, I breezed through school having no interest in government or politics, so work with me here. The way I've been taught, the way you are describing democrats is how I've seen republicans. I've seen the democrats as the ones for the people overall since I was a kid. Republicans are the greedy plantation owners who seek to control everything for an elite few.
I'm not saying that's correct solely because it's what I've heard for years, but I want to know in what other instances can that be picked apart? Why is that the general consensus? How did each come to be viewed the way they are now in more detail.
I apologize if there are some things I'm not tracking on, I'm just here to learn, bru

Fair enough.
How so?

>So obviously my question is have the the Democratic and Republican parties switched platforms?
Yes, most recently in the late 60's due to LBJ taking the Black vote from the GOP. With the Trump era we're going to see a similar switch. If the Dems don't win in 2020 they're going to collapse and completely change

>Lincoln was Republican, but doesntnhe share more views with today's liberals? Same with Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Republican, but he was all about equality, conservation and restricting big business.
Liberal and Progressive do not mean the same thing as they once did, American politics has been shifting ever leftwards and yesterday's Liberals are today's Libertarians

If you actually try to connect today's Democrats/Republicans to Democrats/Republicans of the past, you're going to have a bad time.

And, I don't see why you'd need to. Today's Republicans should take pride in yesterday's Democrats. And, vice-versa.

America has really never had a **horrible** president. Some were better than others, but so far, not one of them has royal fucked everything up so bad that it was beyond redemption, like what happens in so many other countries

We got him

>Some were better than others, but so far, not one of them has royal fucked everything up so bad that it was beyond redemption,

Jimmy Carter

>I've seen the democrats as the ones for the people overall since I was a kid. Republicans are the greedy plantation owners who seek to control everything for an elite few.

That's because the most powerful weapon in politics is accusing your enemy of the thing that you're doing yourself. My grandfather was an immigrant and he even understood it, "I don't know what the difference between republican and democrat is, but when a republican is in office I have work"

Keep in mind I'm describing the 50s through the 80s. Both parties don't care about jobs anymore but back then the republicans were very pro business and lowered taxes on the highest bracket from 90% down to something like 33%. I think people are really forgetting just how fucking shit tier LBJ and Jimmy Carter were.

>America has really never had a **horrible** president

Carter was the last of the real Presidents, the rest are just Military-Industrial puppets. He could have been stronger but at least he didn't start a war

This is where the "the parties switched sides!" rhetoric comes from: The Democratic Party dropped White Southerners (and in doing so, Evangelical Christians) and the Republican Party adopted them, along with their prejudices and existing politics. Up until this, the Republicans were the party of edgy atheists and nigger loving anarchists while all Good White Anglo-Saxon Protestants HAD to vote Democrat lest they be overrun with ethnics.

But, there is a surface level and a deeper level to politics. The surface level refers to politicians catering to their electorate. This is things like Republican candidates talking about Jesus and Democratic candidates feeding soup to the pour: Both candidates would sell their own mother into sexual slavery if they thought it would increase their chances of winning an election. The deeper level comes in at the Machine Level. What do these politicians do that isn't publicized (All media is controlled media, and all media works for some Machine that is trying to get their candidates elected) is what matters. What the people who fund the Machine do, and which Machine funders get funded in return is what matters.

The only people who are diehard democrats are old people who lived through the great depression and thought that FDR was a literal fucking god on earth. Anybody with brains will realize that Eisenhower was a better president

Both are beholden to corporate interests, sure, but it's a bit disingenuous to say both are the same. Though I do agree that Democrats are too spineless to promote real change that we need as a nation. One of the last good Democratic Presidents was Jimmy Carter, and we voted him out because he told us what we needed to hear: America wasn't doing well, we were failing and lagging behind as a nation in several aspects. Then Raygun comes along and jerks off a Bald Eagle and we put him into office.
Usually centrists will criticize everyone else without taking any form of moral stand of their own. No substantial policy or economic stances of their own, just criticisms for everyone else's.

Eh, they really haven't. Americans are actually really blessed that they have had so many "good" politicians to look up to

A lot of Southern opposition to the Republican party had more to do with post-war bitterness than actual political ideals. Just look at what they did to Longstreet's reputation when he became a Republican after the war.

You literally got him: Trump is, point for point, Ross Perot. He's just knows how to play the crowd better.

This brings the surface and deeper level politics into play (). What said is true and sums the difference up. Now suppose you're a Republican who wants to get user's Granpa's vote: What do you tell him? Well, he cares a lot about having a job. You could say "Vote for me, and I'll help you keep your job!". Alternatively, you could tell him "Vote for me, because the other guy will take your job". Fear (and anger) motivate. An evil slave owner whipping poor innocent blacks out of spite is a pretty good caricature, and one that's very easy to hate. If you're running an ethnic Machine (Whose only real draw is "Hey X, vote for me, I'll make things good for you!") how do you motivate members of X to vote for your candidate? Simple: You make them hate the other guy.

How do you make Blacks angry? How do you make them scared? You threaten that slavery will come back if you're not the one in power. And do this for any group. How do you make the wealthy scared? Say the other guy will take away their money. The middle class? The other guy will make things uncomfortable. Jews? HITLER. And on, and on, and on. Eventually, these smear campaigns (Because that's really what they are, no politician wants to be literally Hitler, that requires doing things and politicians don't like doing things) build up and form narratives. Narratives tell you how to think without actually requiring that you think.

These narratives are simplicities: Stories that take the meaning and nuance out of history to shape future events in a way you want. This works off of a quirk of human psychology: Most people don't look into what they hear. If you tell someone something enough, eventually they take it as a fact. It could be completely inaccurate, but they believe it. Why? Everyone else does.

Why are retards blended in purple?

>Let Israel off the hook for bombing the USS Liberty
>Subsidized cyclical poverty in the inner cities
>Got US in Vietnam
>Looked the other way when Israel illegally developed nukes with stolen American materials
>"I'll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years"
>Passed immigration act of 65, sowing the seeds for a massive demographic shift
Americans have to suffer the fate of a slow boil, and it was the Johnson administration that started that boil

So why couldn't this be the Republicans story? Like they really are a bunch of wealthy racist pussies who need guns to defend themselves and only care about themselves...But they just say, "oh no, the democrats really are but they say we are."

Literally only Vietnam and Hart-Cellar were bad.

The Great Society was a good idea.

Choosing the Vietnam War over the Great Society was one of our worst decisions in modern political history. Putting the needs of """containment""" over our own citizens.

>but my thinking is that Lincoln was Republican, but doesntnhe share more views with today's liberals? Same with Teddy Roosevelt.

lolno, society has shifted so far left even these two would be called le EVIL FASCIST EXTREMIST KKK NEO NAZIS by even right-wingers of today.

>Take anything posted here seriously to "learn"
Wew. This explains how pol came through be

>hart cellar
Democrats literally sold out their own people so they could get more votes. Why is this allowed?

First they shipped over the slaves, now they're shipping them over as dependents on the government. Democucks are responsible for everything wrong tbqh

>The Great Society was a good idea.
>Let's not actually try to alleviate poverty
>Let's just keep people just muddling along
It was a piss-poor status-quo peddler passed off as reform

I see deportations in the future tbqh

Hart-Cellar was unironically a good thing. Post-65 immigrants have actually integrated much quicker than the immigrants of the late 19th/early 20th centuries and have lower crime rates than native-born Americans. If you're already worried about about demographic shift, America stopped becoming a WASP-majority nation well before 1965. It was also necessary to save face--by having an explicitly discriminatory immigration policy the Soviets could point to the third world at how racist America was.

>Post-65 immigrants have actually integrated much quicker
yeah thats why they're yelling eliminate the gringo and waving mexican flags right ese?

That's a small minority (and many of the Chicanos were here before 65 anyway). Radical and anti-American sentiments were actually much more common among Italian-American and Jewish immigrants in the early 20th century than they are with Mexicans or Asians today.

Until the 60s the republicans were the ardently white supremacist party. They supported destroying the south to uplift the white proletariat.

Now its the opposite.

>Post-65 immigrants have actually integrated much quicker than the immigrants of the late 19th/early 20th centuries
Anything to back this claim? Because from what I've seen it's just about the same
>America stopped becoming a WASP-majority nation well before 1965
America arguably never stopped being a WASP majority nation, the blood is spread thin
>It was also necessary to save face--by having an explicitly discriminatory immigration policy the Soviets could point to the third world at how racist America was.
Don't know how concrete of an argument that is since the US could theoretically do the same; not like America was a former colonial power. In fact, it was America who pushed for decolonization

>This post

>Hart-Cellar was unironically a good thing. Post-65 immigrants have actually integrated much quicker than the immigrants of the late 19th/early 20th centuries

Yeah, that's why EVERY SINGLE MAJOR AMERICAN CITY from back then turned to shit and stagnated or went outright into decline, right?

> It was also necessary to save face--by having an explicitly discriminatory immigration policy the Soviets could point to the third world at how racist America was

Cuckservative boomer detected, America is less than 56% white and it doesn't stops faggots from whining about how EVIL AND RACIST it still is, in fact that sentiment is stronger than ever.

...

Johnson never said "I'll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years". Also, can you explain what you mean by "sowing the seeds for a massive demographic shift" and "Subsidized cyclical poverty", because I really don't understand what you mean

>Yeah, that's why EVERY SINGLE MAJOR AMERICAN CITY from back then turned to shit and stagnated or went outright into decline, right?
The Rust Belt Cities (which have relatively few immigrants other than Chicago and Minneapolis) declined for reasons unrelated to immigration. The Sunbelt cities are much larger and more prosperous than they were fifty years ago, and violent crime is overall lower than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

>that image
>implying race is the only dividing line in american politics

>Radical and anti-American sentiments were actually much more common among Italian-American and Jewish immigrants in the early 20th century than they are with Mexicans or Asians today.
Got any literature I can read about here? I'm aware of anti-Italian/Irish/Jewish sentiment from the native population, but I did not know they were less inclined to assimilate.

yeah thats just not true at all

>Johnson never said "I'll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years"
Georgia Senator Richard Russell (D) did, this is what LBJ said:
>These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference

>sowing the seeds for a massive demographic shift
1965 immigration act which is what led to America's current demographic trends
>Subsidized cyclical poverty
The Great Society, which didn't do much to actually tackle the issue of poverty but rather make it just bearable enough that people would shut up and keep their heads down

Aristotle also died over 2,000 years before he was able to see the development of modern states. There are innumerable examples of ethnically or otherwise homogeneous societies run as tyrannies, and fewer but still many examples of multic. North Korea is a rather obvious one for today.

yeah if your ancestors have been in charge recently and have the best land this view is certainly pleasant

>Johnson never said "I'll have these niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years"

This, it's a "dems r da REAL racists" lie that retarded GOPers concocted. If anything, LBJ was the biggest negro-loving president that has ever existed. His "we will overcome" stunt would be equivalent to Trump saying "Black lives matter" and doing the black power salute while signing new affirmative action legislation.

Teddy would be a big government, progressive, neoconservative scumbag today, just like back then.

No
washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/15/the-most-segregated-schools-may-not-be-in-the-states-youd-expect-2/?tid=HP_more

>abortion caps minority population growth
>gun control designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous minorities
>welfare cliff

Look up what he said about motherhood and race suicide.

The 2 parties are pretty much the same today. Massive spending, growth of government, 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US clustered around Washington D.C. , globalism, war forever, massive debt, open borders, multinational globalist and big bank rule... it goes on and on. They're the same.

>Aristotle also died over 2,000 years before he was able to see the development of modern states
Modern states didn't suddenly change the fundamentals of human behavior
>There are innumerable examples of ethnically or otherwise homogeneous societies run as tyrannies
That's not the point. The point is it's near impossible to run a DEMOCRACY unless the population is largely homogeneous. It's not the homogeneity per se but it's a necessary component to social order. People need to be able to internalize their community, the nation being a larger representation of that. If people can't, then they also can't project themselves onto the society and you have social decay. Just my own thoughts on the process but this goes across people groups

Yeah and the society they built was for their descendants. I refuse to be shamed into giving that up as many of the self-haters would like to see

> t's a "dems r da REAL racists" lie that retarded GOPers concocted
Don't put words in my mouth, I know Veeky Forums loves doing that; read the first part of

>hurrdurr DR3

oh i didn't mean to shame or anything

He had a mild amount of social conservatism, but that was mainstream back then, so he should get no credit for that. The progressivism and warmongering was an outlier, as it should always be.

>democrats
>pro-labor
>ever
The New Deal was designed to be a Band-Aid to prevent radical leftist labor uprisings and they don't even support New Deal types today so it's even less pro-labor now.

Pro labor relative to how pro-labor you can really be in capitalism.

What warmongering? If you're thinking of the Spanish-American that was before he was Presidnet. Progressivism back then supported eugenics too.

My apologies for getting defensive, I posted that pic in the context of Hart-Cellar

You can't be pro-labor in capitalism, the New Deal was a bunch of theatre to make people think the government was doing something about the great depression so they wouldn't start a revolution. It didn't do shit to fix the economy.

He was a warmongerer over the S-A war, as he was a notable figure even then. He prosecuted war in the Philippines. He clamored and campaigned for the US to get into WW1, forcing Wilson to get us into it. His 3rd party campaign was what put Wilson into the WH in the first place.

Teddy Roosevelt was a disaster for this country. He was an accident of history, and not a good one. The NY Republican party wanted to get rid of him and stuffed him on the VP ticket, he was so bad.

>He clamored and campaigned for the US to get into WW1, forcing Wilson to get us into it.
I'm not much a fan of TR but this was more of the big banks' doing than his. He's just a good poster boy

Quelling a muslim shitskin rebellion is hardly war. He also had no power over Wilson so that's just irrelevant.

Yes, Party's shift all the time, just 20 years ago the Democrats were standing up for Labor and Worker Rights (including curbing illegal immigration) and now they're pandering to minorities and non citizens and taking on this batshit crazy Progressive angle. Trump talks like a Democrat from 1990, its just sad that Democrats can't realize that the people they shit on and call rural and suburban retards were the same people they were campaigning for 20 to 30 years ago.

Question is, the Republican thats full of Neo Cons and Boomer fucks don't really give a shit about labor rights and the Democrats have abandoned them for this insane moral/racial crusader bit, who do the Union Blue Democrats have to stand up for them now?

Also I don't have sauce on the pic but if you have it I'd greatly appreciate it

Dinish d'Souza has this spot on. Virtually all of the blacks in the south were Republicans because of Lincoln. Virtually all of the blacks in the south changed parties for the New Deal in the 1920s.

Virtually all white democrats in the south changed to Republican post WWII due to economic prosperity and low taxes being desirable.

The demorat party has never changed. People who live in demorat parties know that the inner city ghettos have exactly the same living conditions as slaves did under democrats in the south.

What's wrong with the demographic shift?

Richard Milhous Nixon

>Reactionary corporatists who endorse protectionism and isoalionism are the same as liberal internationalists obsessed with justice politics and government programs

There are people who are intellectually lazy, than there are bothsiders.

They flip flopped over civil rights. The GOP are the dixiecrats.

Brainlet answer desu

It's weird how much disdain americans have for moderate politicians yet most of their presidents were exactly that

It's because moderates don't really address problems but rather just slap a band-aid because they're in it for the short-term

not him, but
>Reactionary corporatists
both parties are corporatist. Corporatism and income inequality accelerated under Obama
>endorse protectionism and isoalionism
only about a 1/3 of Republicans are okay with protectionism while the rest are vehemently pro free trade, and hardly any are pro-isolation as they are all in the pockets of the military-industrial complex
> liberal internationalists
The dark money dominating Washington loves cheap, disenfranchised labor. Their goal is playing the immigration extremes off of each other so that the status quo remains.
> obsessed with justice politics and government programs
they're obsessed with "safe" issues like identity politics that won't spook the corporations which donate to them.

>Neither history or politics are my fotre, but my thinking is that Lincoln was Republican, but doesntnhe share more views with today's liberals?
Lincoln was a staunch economic protectionist, a virulent racist and a bit of a bully. Also he loved Russia. He has FAR more in common with Donald Trump than he does with someone like Obama.

>Lincoln was a staunch economic protectionist, a virulent racist and a bit of a bully. Also he loved Russia. He has FAR more in common with Donald Trump than he does with someone like Obama.
everything about that statement is wrong

>President Abraham Lincoln declared, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” Lincoln warned that “the abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government… must produce want and ruin among our people.” Additionally, Lincoln argued that based on economies of scale, any temporary increase in costs resulting from a tariff would eventually decrease as the domestic manufacturer produced more.
>I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races–that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

terrible thread

Yeah man, the erosion of our national identity and lower iq averages are so great. But at least the immigrants are assimilating to whatever vague platitudemongering culture we have left.

That image has nothing to do with Trump, who is already far to the left of Lincoln in immigration. Lincoln would probably have demanded law enforcement with regard to DACA

>protectionism
Lincoln was also a staunch believer in capital redistribution and believed that the key to American prosperity was in supporting the small time property/land owner. All of his policies were firmly rooted in bolstering the industrialized north, which was as much the progressive/socially liberal side of the discussion as it is today.

>shit Lincoln said on the campaign trail to get elected.
In virtually all of his private correspondences Lincoln abhorred slavery and compared it to life under his tyrannical father, who would force young Abe to work so that he could have more beer money. He was also deeply influenced by his meeting with Dred Scott, who convinced him to "evolve" on the issue, the same way that Barack Obama "evolved" on gay rights.

>Post-65 immigrants have actually integrated much quicker than the immigrants of the late 19th/early 20th centuries and have lower crime rates than native-born Americans.
Complete nonsense. Germans and Poles pretty much just became "generic whites" and the only difference between them and Anglos are different surnames. Whereas Mexicans weren't and still aren't integrated in any way or form, there are entire neighborhoods in California and Texas where nobody even speaks English.

Because I wasn't talking about Donald Trump, I was talking about Abraham Lincoln, and specifically how retarded it is to compare him to Donald Trump when "Know-nothingism" is specifically what Donald Trump stands for. Look up the Know-nothings, Donald Trump has much more in common with them

How manny truly successful societies began multiculturally?

>look up the know nothings
>this imbecile thinks the know nothings are obscure
Lincoln is closer to them than Trump anyway. Trump said some of them were rapists, Lincoln called them a degenerate mongrel race

>have the the Democratic and Republican parties switched platforms
no, and it's an obvious lie peddled to children who don't know any better by cunts

Progressivism back then =/= progressivism today

Rome's foundational myth was two separate tribes putting aside their differences and uniting in the best interest of both lines, as explained to them by the women.

From the beginning to the end, Rome was a place where anyone of any race or culture could migrate and find opportunity. It got its start as a haven town, a place where crooks, debtors, and low-lifes could start afresh. At one point in its history it fought a war when their allies who wanted citizenship revolted, which they resolved by making them citizens.

It wasn't until late in the imperial period before you start seeing a specifically Italian consciousness emerge, which went to great length to preserve itself at the cost of making Germanics permanent second class citizens, preventing them from integrating into the Roman system, and it was specifically their greed and their fucking over of Germanics that screwed them in the end.