Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Lincoln was a liberal. Conservatives wanted to keep slavery because they were making money off of them. Lincoln was the pantywaisted liberal who wanted to give them "rights" and "freedom" and deprive all those conservatives of their "property" and ways of enriching themselves.
Ike was also a liberal. He refused to dismiss gays from the military during WW2 even after Congress ordered him to do so. The interstate system is a socialist concept. If conservatives had built it they would have introduced tolls everywhere. Ike also warned the nation about the threat from the conservative military-industrial-complex.
Want to try for 3 strikes?
Man, you are blowing so much smoke trying to reverse what is obvious, you are looking like a fool!
Lincoln was for FREEDOM, which is the tenant of CONSERVATISM! Ike threw a load of illegals out of the country, which is also a tenant of CONSERVATISM! Your typical leftie rewrite of history is funny though, lol.
Do you actually know who the democrats were? They were the klu-klux-klan, they were the ones who put in everything against African Americans. In fact, the klu-klux-klan was the militant arm of the democratic party.
I mean come on!!!!!!!! If you are soooooooooo smart, who did JFK send the troops in against? It sure wasn't republican governors/senators, now was it.
As far as I am concerned, you have it bassackwards. If JFK was alive today and carried the same views he did when elected, he would be a REPUBLICAN!
And on another note, if there is ANYBODY who thinks the democrats don't want illegals and amnesty for political reasons, just look up the DNC platform for 1996. Once you do, you will understand that the DNC had the EXACT same attitude the conservatives (not the establishment GOP) on illegal immigration. But then they came to the same conclusion they did about African Americans in the 60s. And the rest is history.
Now I know people are NOT going to believe this, but I have very good friends that are African American. I asked all of them about Abraham Lincoln, and understand that I know for a fact that at least 2 of these friends have gone to college, and 1 of them has a degree. Do you people know that only 3...........let me spell that for you........ T-H-R-E-E actually knew that Lincoln was a republican! The rest of them thought he was a democrat. And 2 of the 3 explained to me with a very straight face, how the parties politicians switched parties in the 1960s, meaning that the GOOD republicans became democrats, and the racist democrats became republicans.. THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD, I am assuming either in our schools, or by the LEFTIES who want to keep our African American population on the plantation.
So when someone begs the question, "is Trump a white supremacist," all conservatives should instantly have the hair on the back of their neck go up, regardless if you are for him, or someone else. This is how lefties work, innuendo. If you tell a lie long enough, it gets a life of its own, and eventually it becomes fact. Why do you think lefties SCREAM so loud, lol.
If you do not believe it is true, just ask Hillary to talk to the ghost of Lincoln, since we know she talked to the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. (her words, not mine) If she doesn't lie and can actually contact the dead as she claims she can, I am sure Lincoln would want to know why African Americans don't even know he was a republican. That is a question EVERYBODY should wonder about; especially with the amount of tax payer cash our teachers union gets-)
Once again you expose your ignorance and yes, stupidity, by conflating political parties with terms like conservative and liberal.
Both political parties have switched from liberal to conservative and vice versa.
Lincoln was a liberal who opposed slavery and wanted to grant them their freedom.
Conservatives were for slavery and opposed giving slaves their freedom. Conservative racists formed the KKK and wrote the Jim Crow laws and opposed Civil Rights and are currently opposed to voting rights for minorities.
Obviously your confusion and ignorance stem from being home schooled so I suggest you ask for a refund and use that to enroll in remedial adult education at your local community college.
I see, I see. So in the world of lefties, red is blue, and blue is red! So that is how you guys spew propaganda and make it work.
I love you trying so hard, because everyone can see you are squirming, lol!
Ironic given that is exactly what you have been trying to fallaciously conflate!
You are obviously a nihilist. With your 1000s of SHILL posts, I am sure you have honed your art of propaganda, but your problem still remains; the facts are NOT on your side! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Nothing new for lefties, but I can see you actually believe the nonsense you spew which makes you dizzier than most. Consider.........to make your argument work, you have to convince people that 2 political parties KNOWINGLY changed positions to the exact opposite of what they stood for, and changed places in the political spectrum with the opposing party that stood against them. Talk about tin hat/black helicopter propaganda! Fly that one, and I will have to start calling you Josseff Goebbels, lolol! Don't feel badly if I do though, because I have also renamed Jorge Ramos; oh yes I did. I changed Jorge to Igna. That means his new name is........... Ig-Na-Ramos! Hey, maybe you two could take a burrito or two together before siesta and talk about Trump!
Once again you expose the depths of your ignorance.
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms?
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?
Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [How Have Tax Rates Changed Over Time?]
Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.
But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.
Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."
In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.
