Is it true Americans that republicans fought for black rights and the democrats were the ones that didn't want blacks to have rights? How do democrats spin this to appear as the liberals nowadays that care about minorities and make the republicans out to be the big baddies who only care about whites?
Is it true Americans that republicans fought for black rights and the democrats were the ones that didn't want blacks...
Lincoln was a Republican. Even as late as the mid 1900s, Southern Democrats were the driving force for segregation in the South. Al Gore's dad was one of those Southern Democrats.
FYI : Al Gore's daughter married an Asian guy.
his whole bloodline literally got cucked by a shrimp-dicked manlet
The South used to be a Democratic stronghold. The Democrats were the party most associated with the Ku Klux Klan, as well.
This is what changed everything. The Republicans needed to win over Democratic voters in the South, so they rebranded themselves as rednecks. The Republicans did a total 180 on theri support for civil rights legislation, and it worked so well that the Southern Democrat establishment became entirely Republican.
The Democrats were completely BTFO, and their current base is made up almost entirely of JFK supporters who rebuilt the party.
tl;dr fuck Nixon
Democrats was the party of slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. In the 60's, the Democrats started to fight for the minorities to get their votes, the Southerners saw that as a treason and now vote Republican.
t. Americanophile and Anglophile European
The parties 150 years ago were fucking nothing like they are today. It's literally that simple.
This, the 2 main parties change of political views, but they don't change of name.
Right now, Libertarians are entering into the Republican Party to change a bit its political views, its name will stay the Republican Party tho.
Yes the republicans took a more hardline stance on how the constitution should be interpreted. They're still like that.
>How do democrats spin this to appear as the liberals nowadays
They claim that they switched sides right after MLK won because Johnson started giving out welfare to """"""help"""""' the poor disenfranchised blacks. Never mind the fact that they're disenfranchised because of the Democrats
Basically they think that they're Christ incarnate because they buy votes
Ron and Rand Paul were never serious contenders, and le alt-right maymay dominates the younger Republican voters.
>. In the 60's, the Democrats started to fight for the minorities to get their votes
Bull Connor was a Democrat
Barry Goldwater won in the Deep South purely because Southern Democrats refused to vote for LBJ due to his support for the Civil Rights Act
>How do democrats spin this
Nobody brings it up or just accept the simple explanation that things switched. People have a short memory so they don't care.
>The youngest of Al Gore's three daughters, Sarah Gore, 28
Does she look 28 to anyone else?
>implying Republicans don't 'buy' votes from the wealthy with unsustainable tax breaks
>shilling this breitbart-tier meme about welfare being a seekrit plot to keep blacks dependent and ineffectual
Why does everything have to be a conspiracy with you fucks? Why can't the Democrats just have a different idea of how the government should work than we do?
>shilling this huffpo tier meme that it's not
The Republican Party is dying
It's a hodgepodge collection of strident, fringe social, political, and economic ideologies. That's it. It has no real identity. I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest that anything remotely ties those ideologies together, other than the fact that most people reject them, and their only home is the Republican Party
>tfw Americans cucked anti-leftist ideals with their shitty Alt-Right movement.
Historically it has no identity.
Functionally as a centre right wing party, like all broad church right wing parties with a base in the business community, it has a cohesive identity, more of one than the Democrats, which recently had a contest for presidential candidate that was drawn along one of the lines of division within the left. Not that the Democrats are going to rip themselves apart any time soon, but in a comparative sense they have more fundamental reasons for doing so if it ever were to happen.
And as long as your electoral systems work the way they do, with primaries based around two official parties, I doubt your existing two party system will change much. Trump is an aberration and one that can be more than tolerated.
Violence and opression always comes from the left.
Maybe you think if you say it enough times it will become true.
tl;dr the parties the same supporters but the supporters started to want different things, which in turn attracted different supporters who then started to want different things, etc
by the 50s the parties had basically flipped
In the Netherlands violence comes from environmentalists and anti-facists. The only political violence in moder times was the murder of Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist. Before that we had the cold war with communists, an invasion by national socialists and the threat of a revolution by socialists (for who we had to ban guns).
And the scary right wing introduced welfare, female emancipation and equal rights.
>Functionally as a centre right wing party, like all broad church right wing parties with a base in the business community, it has a cohesive identity, more of one than the Democrats, which recently had a contest for presidential candidate that was drawn along one of the lines of division within the left. Not that the Democrats are going to rip themselves apart any time soon, but in a comparative sense they have more fundamental reasons for doing so if it ever were to happen.
The progressive party is always the one with the more cohesive identity and sense of purpose, since progressivism is inherently ingrained in American culture and the very sense of being American. The Republicans used to be progressive; now the Democrats are. It may switch again, but not anytime soon.
As for the two-party system, the national parties themselves are just ever-changing coalitions of interest groups, state and local parties, activist groups, etc., and the reason why it has persisted for so long is because it does a pretty good job of letting those tensions play out on the state and local level while giving the national electorate a clear choice and the executive branch a clear mandate for the next four years, which makes sense given the size of the population and the challenges inherent to federalism
The scary right wing allowed seasonal workers from foreign countries to come here.
>scary right wing
Why doesn't Theo Van Gogh count?
He was killed by a Muslim terrorist. Not sure how you should qualify them.