Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?

[evince]

... yet you are completely and utterly unable to refute even one sentence of my "pee wee" post...

Who's the "pee wee" now, pee wee?

It’s not historically correct


Get a new translator

 

[AProudLefty]

You are now the THIRD libtard to both see and respond to my post, offering up no more than a single short sentence in response that does not include any rebuttal to anything that I said about the history of the two parties. At least ask yourself why the Demonkkkrat Party, on their own website, actively chooses to completely ignore the first 100 years of their own existence......

You don't speak for Legion. Legion can speak for himself.

I have create a thread explaining the party platform switch.

And I was not speaking for Legion, dumbass.

 

[gfm7175]

Thank you for admitting you do not recognize the American cultural reverence Russo bot hole

Thank you for admitting you are a pee wee cry baby who soils his diaper every night.

 

[gfm7175]

It’s not historically correct

Yet, you are unable to intelligently identify and explain precisely what is incorrect and why it is incorrect.

You are still a pee wee who soils his diaper every night.

 

[gfm7175]

I have create a thread explaining the party platform switch.

And I created a post (Post #3 within your thread) explaining why the "party platform switch" theory is complete and utter bullshit.

And I was not speaking for Legion, dumbass.

Yes you were, dumbass.

Why did the Demonkkkrat Party's own official website actively choose to ignore the first ONE HUNDRED YEARS of their own Party's history?

 

[archives]

Livescience and Wikipedia are dismissed with prejudice.

The "party switching" BS is a lie. It never happened. Demonkkkrats, since their founding in 1828, have always been the pro-slavery party. Republicans, since their founding in 1854, have always been the anti-slavery party.

What is funny though is that the Demonkkkrat's own website starts off their own history in the 1920s with "women's suffrage". Why is that?? Why do they wish to skip over a whole century of their own history?? Oh, that's right, they wish to skip over their history of supporting slavery... skip over their opposition to Republicans ending slavery (and their subsequent formation of the KKK)... skip over their opposition to giving reparations to slaves (you know, the people who ACTUALLY experienced damages during that time period)... skip over the fact that Republicans formed and funded Howard University... skip over Demonkkkrat opposition to making black people citizens... skip over the fact that Republicans fought against the KKK that the Demonkkkrats founded... skip over the fact that Demonkkkrats OPPOSED allowing black people to vote... skip over the fact that REPUBLICANS elected the first black representatives and senators... skip over the fact that DEMONKKKRATS implemented and supported Jim Crow Laws... skip over the fact that REPUBLICANS were already supporting women's suffrage in the late 1800s... skip over the fact that DEMONKKRATS continued to support the KKK (and its domestic terrorism) in the early 1900s... skip over the fact that it was REPUBLICANS who led the women's suffrage movement...

Then, there's more history from the 1920s and on that the Demonkkkrat Party website conveniently leaves out, including supporting the lynching of blacks, continued KKK support, their mental enslavement of blacks via the "New Deal" economic benefits that they gave to blacks, their opposition to civil rights during the 1930s-60s, their internment of Japanese Americans, their continued support for segregation, the fact that a Demonkkkrat shot MLK, the fact that Demonkkkrats created the modern day welfare system, and much more...


Meanwhile, the Republican Party website starts their history off right at 1854 when the Party was formed, and truthfully speaks about their anti-slavery reasons for forming. It also gets into the fact that Republicans were the party to create national parks, have the first black governor, have the first woman representative, grant citizenship to the native tribes ("Native Americans"), have the first hispanic senator, have the first Asian-American senator, place the first woman on SCOTUS, and etc...


The parties NEVER changed. The Demonkkrats are still the same hateful racist compulsive pro-slavery bigots today that they were at their formation, and the Republicans are still the same anti-slavery freedom-loving liberty-advocates that they were at their formation.

The fact that “nightingale” leaves out is that these are CONSERVATIVE Democrats who he attributes all the race hating to, does he think Lincoln’s GOP were referee to as the Radical Republicans cause they were conservative

 

[AProudLefty]

And I created a post (Post #3 within your thread) explaining why the "party platform switch" theory is complete and utter bullshit.

All you did was copying and pasting someone's else words. You have not pointed out what was in error in OP.

Yes you were, dumbass.

No I wasn't. Clearly you have not caught up with the fact that I have a sense of humor. Legion loves to post the "genetic fallacy" image. You committed a genetic fallacy by dismissing the sites.

Why did the Demonkkkrat Party's own official website actively choose to ignore a whole ONE HUNDRED YEARS of their own Party's history?

Explain why it is necessary for them to do so.

 

[gfm7175]

All you did was copying and pasting someone's else words.

Oh really?? Then you should be able to easily reproduce the website and text that I supposedly "cut and pasted"... We are all awaiting your bountiful display of wisdom!

No, dude... I type up my own responses... each and every one of them... I have no need to cut/paste from other sources because I am a free thinker. I have no need to allow livescience and Wikipedia to do my thinking for me.

You have not pointed out what was in error in OP.

Yes, I have. The OP's (your) position that the two parties switched platforms is in error, and I described precisely why that is. See my post #3 in this thread.

No I wasn't. Clearly you have not caught up with the fact that I have a sense of humor. Legion loves to post the "genetic fallacy" image. You committed a genetic fallacy by dismissing the sites.

No genetic fallacy was committed... I dismissed livescience and Wikipedia links with prejudice as I have seen enough evidence of their continued incompleteness, misleadingness, and just plain incorrectness to no longer waste my time with them anymore.

I did not dismiss the argument itself (as made by those two sources, claiming that "the two major parties switched platforms"). I directly addressed (and demolished) that argument throughout the rest of my post #3.

Explain why it is necessary for them to do so.

I didn't say that it was necessary to do. They can choose to present their history however they see fit.

However, I have every right to question their presentation of their history, including questioning why they would wish to completely skip over the first one hundred years of their history. I would think that one wanting to learn about a political party would wish to know when they were formed, how they were formed, why they were formed, etc... I would think that one would wish to also hear about early accomplishments of the Party...??

 

[AProudLefty]

Oh really?? Then you should be able to easily reproduce the website and text that I supposedly "cut and pasted"... We are all awaiting your bountiful display of wisdom!

No, dude... I type up my own responses... each and every one of them... I have no need to cut/paste from other sources because I am a free thinker. I have no need to allow livescience and Wikipedia to do my thinking for me.


Yes, I have. The OP's (your) position that the two parties switched platforms is in error, and I described precisely why that is. See my post #3 in this thread.


No genetic fallacy was committed... I dismissed livescience and Wikipedia links with prejudice as I have seen enough evidence of their continued incompleteness, misleadingness, and just plain incorrectness to no longer waste my time with them anymore.

I did not dismiss the argument itself (as made by those two sources, claiming that "the two major parties switched platforms"). I directly addressed (and demolished) that argument throughout the rest of my post #3.


I didn't say that it was necessary to do. They can choose to present their history however they see fit.

However, I have every right to question their presentation of their history, including questioning why they would wish to completely skip over the first one hundred years of their history. I would think that one wanting to learn about a political party would wish to know when they were formed, how they were formed, why they were formed, etc... I would think that one would wish to also hear about early accomplishments of the Party...??

You have yet to rebut a single sentence in my OP. And yes you did commit genetic fallacy. Dismissing sources is genetic fallacy.

And who is skipping over the first one hundred years? We have history classes for that.

I'm hopeful but I don't think you'll be able to rebut a single point.

 

[gfm7175]

You have yet to rebut a single sentence in my OP. And yes you did commit genetic fallacy. Dismissing sources is genetic fallacy.

And who is skipping over the first one hundred years? We have history classes for that.

I'm hopeful but I don't think you'll be able to rebut a single point.

RAAA.
RQAA.

 

[AProudLefty]

RAAA.
RQAA.

So that's it?

Well I hope someone else will be able to point out the errors in my OP.

 

[gfm7175]

The fact that “nightingale” leaves out is that these are CONSERVATIVE Democrats who he attributes all the race hating to,

No, they were Demonkkkrats, belonging to the Demonkkkrat Party. There's no "conservative" involved here.

does he think Lincoln’s GOP were referee to as the Radical Republicans cause they were conservative

???? Try English next time... I have no idea what you're trying to ask me.

 

[gfm7175]

So that's it?

Well I hope someone else will be able to point out the errors in my OP.

Already did. RQAA.

 

[AProudLefty]

No, they were Demonkkkrats, belonging to the Demonkkkrat Party. There's no "conservative" involved here.


???? Try English next time... I have no idea what you're trying to ask me.

A Republican/Democrat can be conservative, independent or liberal.

BTW, Lincoln was very racist.

 

[AProudLefty]

Already did. RQAA.

Nope you didn't.

 

[gfm7175]

A Republican/Democrat can be conservative, independent or liberal.

And here we go again with the pivoting... We're not talking about conservatives, independents, or liberals... We are talking about the history of both the Republican Party and the Demonkkkrat Party, specifically your claim that those parties "switched platforms" at some unspecified point in time. I have already told you (see post #3) why that claim which you regurgitated from livescience and Wikipedia is completely and utterly erroneous.

BTW, Lincoln was very racist.

 

[AProudLefty]

And here we go again with the pivoting... We're not talking about conservatives, independents, or liberals... We are talking about the history of both the Republican Party and the Demonkkkrat Party, specifically your claim that those parties "switched platforms" at some unspecified point in time. I have already told you (see post #3) why that claim which you regurgitated from livescience and Wikipedia is completely and utterly erroneous.

You do not know what "platform" means?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you since you have no clue what "platform" means.

 

[gfm7175]

You do not know what "platform" means?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you since you have no clue what "platform" means.

You do not know what "genetic fallacy" means?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you since you have no clue what "genetic fallacy" means.

 

[AProudLefty]

You do not know what "genetic fallacy" means?

I wouldn't laugh if I were you since you have no clue what "genetic fallacy" means.

Genetic Fallacy
(also known as: fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue)

Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.

Logical Form:

The origin of the claim is presented.

Therefore, the claim is true/false.

 

[gfm7175]

Genetic Fallacy
(also known as: fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue)

Description: Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.

Logical Form:

The origin of the claim is presented.

Therefore, the claim is true/false.

Nice cut and paste there!

You obviously don't even understand what that cut and pasted definition means if you think that I did that in this thread.