Right wingers and conservatives and Christians were anti-slavery and lived in the Northern states. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and so were the congressmen who approved the Civil Rights act. People are so ignorant these days. The liberals in the south supported slavery.
Yes you can, LBJ and the civil rights act. It was a transition process like changing gender. Except the conservative put on white robes and swastikas in public instead of dresses, they still wear those at home.
Ahhh yes the questionable quote that mysteriously showed up 30 years after it is supposed to have been said, whose ONLY source is one single book author who is retelling a friend's retelling of the story, also known as a second hand rumor.
There's no evidence that LBJ ever actually said that
There is a switch happening again where the Republicans are slowly becoming the party of the working class and the Democrats the party of the higher income "elites".
Taking away workers and womenās rights is not very working class centric policy, neither is gutting unions or really anything in project 2025. Thank god they were stupid enough to put all of their policies in print so when smooth brains say dumb shit we can just point to the project 2025 website and all of the staffers that work for the poop pants orange man that work for Heritage.
Republicans are not anti-union, anymore. You need to catch up.
This year the Republicans invited the teamsters to the table, meanwhile the Democrats refused to have the teamsters as part of the convention.
The Democrats are not for the American people. They're for exporting our tax money to foreign powers, replacing Americans with immigrants, and murdering babies.
Growing redistribution of the wealth going towards the upper class statistically more and more of the āpieā is going to upper class than the middle class and thereās countless papers to prove this
First of all whatever comment where you mentioned brain rot is deleted so I only saw the beginning š¤·āāļø second I never claimed it is zero sum that would mean middle and lower classes arenāt also getting more prosperous which if you read the link I sent at all that would show my argument, obviously the world is growing richer however the rate at which percentage of wealth and amount is dramatically going to the wealthy more than the non wealthy so wealth inequality is growing. On a theoretical note the world economy could possibly be zero sum if you look at the impoverished third world nations that are taken advantage of but thatās a school of thought not my argument at all.
Also bro says brain rot then calls me š didnāt know this was call of duty lobby talk
Itās still in transition. The head of the teamsters spoke at the last RNC for the first time and declined to endorse a candidate for the first time in decades. Previously theyād only endorsed democrats. The tax cuts also included the working class and in no way came at their expense.
Setting that aside. Even if their platform was āFuck the poorā, thatās not really what their comment was talking about. They were remarking on an observable statistical fact. When you look at party demographics the right is mostly non college educated working class and the left is mostly college educated and from a variety of work environments.
For presidential campaign contributions, the left is mostly major corporations and the right is individual donors. Conservatives tend to live in poorer rural areas while liberals live concentrated in wealthier cities.
It also makes sense from a historical perspective. The lower classes are always more reactionary than the progressive upper classes. I could actually go on and on.
Itās just an observable trend that Republicans are increasingly the party of the working class, while Democrats are increasingly not.
Sure, but they still need their votes and in order to get that they have to throw them some bones from time to time. You seem to be under the impression that there are good and bad guys at this game.
They throw billionaires more bones than anyone else, the only bones they throw actual people are words, propaganda and culture war topics.
I also didn't say anything about good guys, don't put words in my mouth. The good guys won't appear on the ballot, because to get that far you have to have oligarch backing; so being "good" becomes impossible.
It's also true that the people who have historically fought for the rights of manual labour jobs are progressives. Modern day republicans are anything but.
The progressives are morons and they don't have much say in what the Democrats do, which are increasingly aligning themselves with the corporate elite. Just look around you, almost every major corporation in the US is towing the line of the Democrats now. MAGA Republicans have alienated the business class.
Lmao idk dude I get the notification and see the preview of some of your comments but they donāt actually show likely for some TOS reason idk š¤·āāļø
Bro wot š obviously imma a tax cut either way even if it benefits the rich more that was never my argument however to make a tax plan that you claim does so much for the working class yet actually ends up doing a lot more for the upper class is misleading at best especially when the middle class tax cuts were so extremely minuscule I donāt see the point of your argument is it just be happy with whatever scraps are thrown to use while the rich get way bigger benefits?
Republicans definitely didn't use to be liberal. The Republicans were born from the Whigs, who themselves came from the Federalists. The Republicans were pro-big government when it was crucial for the operation and expansion of capitalism to the American West. The Democrats have been economically populist for the entirety of their existence. Why do you think Boston and New York were voting Democrat in the 1850s? When Abraham Lincoln won Massachusetts by a landslide in 1860, why do you think Boston was by far his weakest part of the state? The parties did not change. The Democrats have been left-wing since the 1850s, and left-wing populists since the 1890s.
Wrong republicans were actually considered very liberal for their time obviously compared to now not so much but starting a party that is anti slavery was obviously very liberal the parties obviously changed what you are failing to remember is there were southern democrats and northern democrats both that had different values parties were more coalitions of multiple groups rather than one brain think machines that they are now
Holy run-on sentence batman. The point is that the Republicans have been the economically right-wing party for the entirety of their existence as a party, and have also been identifiably ideologically tied to conservatism for a length of time predating their party. Just because the South started voting for Republicans in the last 30 years doesn't mean Republicans weren't inarguably committed to conservatism through the 19th century and 20th centuries. Woodrow Wilson believed in white supremacy, but he was inarguably much further left than Charles Evans Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt publicly identified as a conservative, Calvin Coolidge is idolised for his conservatism, and Abraham Lincoln was literally a Whig (read the ideology section, which lists them as "traditionalist conservative") before becoming a Republican! With the benefit of basic historic facts, you cannot say with any degree of intellectual honesty that the Republicans have not been the more conservative party from inception to today.
Bro š¤¦āāļø first of all starting anti slavery party is a very liberal thing to do lol so that blows your argument out of the water in the first place and second if you think any one party has kept the same economic platforms for a majority of their existence you would also be dead wrong. Republicans started promoting their economic policies that we see today in around the 1920s with the whole hands off approach that eventually led to the Great Depression. You are right in that republicans started being conservative over time in the 20th century because thatās the whole basis of the āparty switchā
Even if we take a core republican policy like tariffs they were initially strongly pro tariff then eventually embraced open trade and only in recent times are promoting tariffs again.
You lack a basic understanding of political theory and 19th and 20th century American history. For one, the most famous and influential conservative theorist in history was Edmund Burke, who famously wrote in opposition to slavery, and whose writings were influential among abolitionists. Abolition is not an inherently left-wing cause, it's actually an inherently classical liberal cause. Classical liberalism is the intellectual bedrock of modern small-government conservatism. You're also completely wrong about the timeline and substance regarding Republican economic policy. The Republicans were always the most staunch advocates of industrialisation and capitalism. You should start by reading about the Fuller Court and Lochner Era, and then you should look at which party appointed those judges. Then you should read about William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson. If you want to see why you're wrong about the foundations of the Republican party, look into the core beliefs of its two direct predecessor parties, the Whigs, and the Federalists before them. You completely failed to engage with any substantive examples from the 19th and early 20th centuries which blow gaping holes in your premises. You also have a tenuous understanding of the reasons behind the Republican support for import substitution.
Youāre completely wrong dude like I said there multiple examples that can be looked at such as tariffs republicans were pro tariff then they were anti tariff then now theyāre pro tariff again same with free markets and government intervention , same way there were pro big business republicans there were also pro big business democrats in the north along with those republicans.
Abolition while under the tenets of classical liberalism is till a progressive cause and it was considered that way during the time as well you literally cannot argue that anything about abolition is at all actually not progressive.
What you fail to understand is not only has the political spectrum of right and left changed over time along with what is considered radical and what isnāt radical you also fail to remember neither one of these parties have ever been completed monoliths when it comes to how their many different members believe hence why you have things like teddy Roosevelt splitting and Barry Goldwater Dixie crats democrats and republicans in then north etc etf the only intellectually dishonest thing here is to try to claim there wasnāt an obvious switch in many beliefs of the and the constituents the constituents that vote for them.
I donāt wish to continue this argument I heavily disagree with you however if you have some good sources you can send me for me to read in my own time that support your argument please send and Iāll read it but Iām def done with this discussion
They used to be progressive. Progressive at the time referred to pushing Classic Liberalism. Terms switch and maintaining classical liberal values became conservative. Same idea, different view based on predominance. Liberal comes from Social Liberalism, aka marxism lite.
They weren't really socially progressive aside from abolitionism, and those factions of their party began migrating to the Democrats starting in the 1890s. And the Republicans nominated extremely conservative justices from the 1880s. The Fuller Court, the most economically conservative court (while also being highly socially conservative) in American history were all Republican appointees. The New Deal was stymied by Republican justices for as long they could manage it. To suggest the Republicans were consistently to the left of the Democrats in American history on any issue other than abolition is an untenable notion. And that fact holds true with their predecessor parties (the Whigs, and before them the Federalists).
Yes, the party switch, a favorite talking point among Democrats. The Democratic Party started in the 1820s, and right from the beginning, it showed its true colors by advocating for the removal and extermination of Native Americans. Their opposition, the Whig Party, was against the Indian Removal Act and promised to protect minorities from mob rule. Because the sides were "switched," the vast majority of the Whig Party was anti-slavery.
Eventually, a rift over slavery led anti-slavery members of the Whig Party, including Abraham Lincoln, to exit and form the Republican Party. Interestingly, the parties must have "switched again," because it's now common knowledge that Republicans are considered the racist ones.
Then, the parties "switched" when Democrats were primarily the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slave owners were Democrats. Not a single Republican in history ever owned a slave. And yet, the parties must have switched once more when Republicans repudiated slavery while Democrats defended it, leading to the Civil War.
The parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated the Republican President Lincoln. After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, Republicans attempted to pass several civil rights amendments granting citizenship to freedmen. In this case, Democrats opposed giving former slaves citizenship, though the amendments passed despite their resistance.
The parties switched once more when Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan as their militant arm. They then tried to pass the first gun control laws, intending to disarm black Americans and prevent retaliation against their former owners. A county even proposed a law making it illegal to possess firearms unless you were on horseback. (Wonder who was riding around terrorizing people on horses? š¤) Gun control has always been a noble cause for Democrats, but the origins of it were rooted in racism.
Around this time, former slaves fought for gun rights, and the NRA was founded. Interestingly, the NRA "switched sides" too, when they defended the right for black Americans to arm themselves, and white NRA members protected black people from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, a battle fiercely opposed by Democrats. The nation saw a wave of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by Democrats in the KKK. The parties switched once more when Democrat Bull Connor attempted to avoid prosecuting the bombers, and when black Americans protested, he unleashed police dogs and fire hoses on them. He also gave stand-down orders to police when the KKK attacked the Freedom Riders.
The parties switched yet again when a Democratic president appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court. And the switch happened once more when FDR, another Democratic president, ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Later, Democrats filibustered against the second set of civil rights laws that aimed to protect minorities. The parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
And here we are in modern times, where the parties continue to "switch" all the time. For instance, the parties switched when Democrats proposed policies like affirmative action, which limits opportunities for some racial groups to grant privileges to others. The parties switched again when Islamic fundamentalists, like Omar Mateen, and other ISIS-aligned mass shooters threw their support behind Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties are still in the process of switching, as evidenced by liberal student groups at universities like UCLA and Berkeley calling for segregated housing for black students. The latest switch happened when the Democratic presidential nominee told black Americans, "You're not black" if they didn't vote for him, revealing how the Democratic Party views its largest voter base as their property.
And letās not forget, the current president once said he didn't want his kids growing up in a "racial jungle." He also referred to Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, as "one of his mentors." After all, if you donāt vote for him, "you aināt black!" Because, apparently, African Americans are expected to think and act as a collective. And due to party switching, itās now perfectly acceptable for Democrats to call a black Republican candidate an āUncle Tomā or the āblack face of white supremacy.ā
So, as you can see, because of the party switch, Democrats were always the ones who stood against racism and fought for peace and unity, while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones sowing division and discord.
I wonder if these dipshits think the democrats from over a hundred years ago are still alive. Otherwise who gives a shit what they stood for a century ago, it's their stances now that matter.
You obviously donāt know what youāre talking about no one is making any claim older democrats werenāt racist the party switch is a long time swap of the parties demographic and certain ideals obviously there is a switch because the conservative south which use to be hard democrats is hard republican and same for the north you gotta be blind to ignore that and you can point to many racist things republicans did over time too š¤¦āāļø the same way democrats had multiple rifts in their party republicans also had the same which resulted in them losing some elections itās obviously not cut and dry but āparty switchā refers to this course of events
I mean yeah! A lot of people even until now are racist even Abraham Lincoln said he wouldāve liked to send them all back to Africa or that freeing the slaves didnāt matter as much as saving the union etc etc
Itās almost as if time changes things and you should vote on current issues not past ones.
Idgaf if democrats in 1860 wanted slaves, the democrats today want better social support, affordable health care, womens rights to their out anatomy. Actually holding buissness accountable, stopping industrial pollution, protecting state and national parks, not taking away birth control, stopping plan 2025 which would cripple veteran care.
If you vote based on past issues you should rope. If you donāt like anything I mentioned above, you should probably rope too cause thatās pathetic.
Remind me which party the KKK votes for today? Is it the evil racist Democrats? What about the Neo-Nazis? Which party do they downballot when they get into the booths? Is it the liberal party? How about all those 'The South Will Rise Again!' folks clamoring for Civil War 2 who want to break off and own slaves again. Are they Harris supporters?
Terminology switched, not the parties. When the Republicans were the progressive party, Classic Liberalism was a new idea that was reshaping how politics and governments were structured around the world. In the 1900s classic liberalism had firmly established itself so conserving it became conservative. Prior conservatives referred to conserving the old order from Europe. In the early 1900s Social Liberalism (Equity over Equality) rose in the west and became progressive.
A lot of the rot in both parties came from former whiggs.
I mean they didnāt switch on everything, but it is just a fact that the Democrats of the mid-19th century were the party of social conservatism and diplomatic isolationism, while today they are socially progressive and diplomatically interventionist (though so are the Reps when it comes to foreign wars). The Republicans on the other hand were socially progressive for their time unlike their conservative descendants, though in some aspects they were similar to their modern counterpart, for example theyāve always been the more pro-business party from what I understand (unless that business was slave-owning).
The Republicans were always the "conservative" party. They directly descended from the Whigs, who were themselves descended from the Federalists. Both were ideologically traditionalist conservative parties. The Jacksonian Democrats were actually the ones who fought to expand the franchise to all white males in the 19th century, while the Federalists and Whigs fought to keep the franchise restricted as much as possible. The Republicans of the 19th century could be far more reasonably associated with Burkean Conservatism than they could be with progressivism.
The Republicans, by nature of their ties to abolitionism, had factions which included left-wingers. But their abolitionism was as much or more rooted in economic self-interest and classical liberalism as it was in rights-based arguments. The plantation economy of the South were in complete opposition to the economic disposition of the North, such that the former desperately needed low trade barriers to sell their products profitably to the Continent, while the latter pined for high trade barriers to shelter their burgeoning industry from British manufacturing output. People in the North rationally supported abolitionism because it would allow for import substitution and facilitate rapid industrialisation, which slavery stood in the way of. "Progress" in those times, was as much a matter of industrial expansion as it was a question of social emancipation, in the sense that these goals were largely intertwined.
Of course, Iām not arguing that the Republicans werenāt economically liberal, but Iām saying that that was progressive for their time. I think we are in agreement.
They may have been "progressive" for their time economically, but they were inarguably the "conservative" party, in the Burkean tradition. The Republicans came from the traditionalist conservative tradition of their two direct predecessor parties, the Whigs, and the Federalists before them.
I think that slavery and the southern planters were much more ātraditionalistā than the northern capitalists. Even Marx himself supported the Union for exactly that reason.
Largely incorrect. The Jacksonian Democrats were the progressives for their time on every issue other than slavery. They supported a large and expansive federal government, but most importantly they supported expanding the franchise to all white males, while the anti-Jacksonian parties largely fought against this expansion, seeking to maintain the barriers of property requirements (for example) to franchise. Why do you think that every partisan opponent of the Democrats (and their predecessors the Democratic-Republicans), the Federalists, the National Republicans, the Whigs, are all described as ideologically traditionalist conservative. It seems like you have a terminal case of presentism and ideological blinders, but more importantly lack understanding of both basic and crucial elements of the first and second party systems.
I suppose thatās fair enough, and you do probably know more about this period than I do, but Iād still say that ending the outdated economic system of slavery constitutes progressivism for the time, even if they were conservative in other aspects.
It all comes down to interest convergence. It was in the interest of industrialists to have cheap labour and high tariffs. Emancipation would both lower wages by increasing the size of the labour force, while also allowing them to erect high tariff barriers to keep mass-produced British goods out of the United States and ensure a captive American market. These industrialists would sooner have far sooner restricted the franchise to propertied males (so they could effectively dictate economic policy themselves), but if all white males were to be enfranchised, it served their interests vastly better to also end slavery.
The Confederate Flag represents States Rights, not slavery. INB4 someone says right to do what, States Rights is a concept referring to the State's ability to self govern as opposed to a centralized system.
That's just blatantly not true at all, aka wrong. Wikipedia accepts any credible source, maybe ask yourself why conservatives often struggle to maintain credible conservative sources. Like they have a couple like the CATO institute but those are one in a million in a sea of lies, exaggeration and political fuckery
Bruh, if you seriously think the Associated Press is āfar-leftā, I have a bridge in Kansas to sell you.
Yāall conservatives have a problem of not being able to prove your claims, you just go on vibes and misinterpretations of evidence. Itās sad.
Very low energy, very weak. Canāt even own up to accepting that your āsourcesā might be wrong.
Itās like that stupid cat and goose-eating myth up in Springfield, OH. The best conservatives could come up with were wild claims by totally not compensated conservative city activists going to a city hall meeting saying that āimmigrants ate my pet cats!ā
Need more solid evidence than that. Donāt trust shit at face value. You donāt even need to trust the AP. Itās easy to verify for yourself claims that mainstream media makes.
The point is not that the GOP are now liberal, but that they have always primarily been a conservative party. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig before the Republican party was formed. Just because both parties were more mixed at one point doesn't change that fact.
The demarcation line between north and south east coast USA in mid 19th century America was the mason DIXON line. South of that is Dixie land. It originated from Louisiana but became popular via Alabama, as the heart of Dixie. What was the major party of the South? The Democratic Party. What was the name of one of their internal branches of the party? The Dixiecrats. What was their flag? The Stars and Bars Confederate Battle Flag. I dare you to name the side which carried that flag into battle. Iāll give you a big hint, it was Johnny Reb and the CSA
Do me a favor and find a klansmen so I can call his heathen Dixie secessionist ass a democrat because he is so.
Ah yes, switching your endorsement mid election cycle to the liberal candidate whoās party is fundamentally pro black and Jewish. Gee, I wonder why the Grand Wizard of the KKK would do that lmao
Donāt know anything about that. I do know however that the libs worship black people and minorities like itās their job. Not sure where that aligns with Klan policy.
Thats a gigantic lie, David Duke was grand wizard in the 80ās when he served as a republican for Louisiana. The larpers waving around swastikas today certainly arenāt voting for Kamala.
American politics have no basis that the common working person can relate to. The only talking points for the poor are abortion, immigration, "taxes", and "inflation", double quotes because nobody actually knows how taxes, subsidies and inflation works.
And then the few images you want to associate yourself with, hard working republican christian "common sense" family, the educated "rational" racially conscious liberal. It's all cartoons and role playing for the poor.
None of these parties can represent the little guy full stop.
I say it's like cartoons for the poor cause it's all fake images to entertain you and make you think you're a part of something. It's all posturing based on the image you want to identify with. Voting is making pinky promises with the rich.
Jobs? What about jobs? They think giving subsidies and cutting taxes for mega-corps is creating jobs, but those mega-corps do not have a job quota and the government doesn't legally enforce the job-creation process. They're literally just giving money away to mega-corps and saying it makes jobs.
Cost of living? What about it? The "free" market is allergic to most price-controls. How are you going to force a massive land holder to regulate prices on their apartments? Isn't that communism? "Muh government forcing citizens" Cause the rhetoric implies that a massive Real Estate Trust is a citizen too. A billionaire land holder is a normal citizen like you and me right? You can't force them because then walmart will get scared. Uber will freak out, Tyson foods will think twice.
Crime? Fix poverty you fix crime. Selling drugs is a job people do for money, that's it. They also want to make you think it's forbidden, but drug trafficking is a standard part of the economy, they just don't admit it. If you could make taxless billions in an un-regulated industry like drug trafficking, wouldn't you make sure it was kept illicit?
Culture? Culture barely exists. It's whatever some algo is shoving down your throat and you wish to identify with. That's culture. Whatever people see you as and you want to see yourself as mediated by social media, TV, movies, and the internet at large. Culture is basically what they allow you to identify with.
So this is what I expected. Because they are not doing communism it's all meaningless.
Companies don't need 'job quotas' to make jobs. If they get more money they reinvest it in the company which leads to more jobs.
Then apparently markets are bad because you can't force landlords to implement rent controls.
The problem is you frame this in a general way, but all your complaints come down to specifics about them not doing communism. This is like if someone went on about the culture being messed up, then said it was because the culture wasn't fitting itself to Buddhist ideals well enough.
Anyways your entire worldview has been totally falsified and is of no interest to anyone anymore.
You literally believe in trickle down economics. When they give em millions CEO salary increases and stock buybacks as well.
And Markets are bad because they have no means of regulating themselves that doesn't involve the state. They will shoot all of society in the foot for profits and then need bail outs. Competition always creates monopolies. Market production has no real feedback mechanisms vs planned economies that are actually "intelligent" in the sense that they respond to actual need. And not to the fictitious "supply and demand" that all capitalists talk about but has no real mechanism other than buying.
Imagine your whole infrastructure being owned by individuals. Absurd right? What about walmart? That feeds millions and is for-profit. It's basically a public service for private profit. National Security involves protecting walmart because of their massive position in the daily lives of millions of americans. An absurd model.
Walmart is a national interest. Corruption is inherent. And that's just one example. Imagine how many wars have been fought to protect private interests in the name of the public. Y'all get sent to your graves for oil tycoons. It's a mafia and all you get are the shadows on the wall.
There can be no democracy when there is so much money on the line. Where do your interests fit into this?
You literally believe in trickle down economics. When they give em millions CEO salary increases and stock buybacks as well.
This observably happens. Trump did it.
And Markets are bad because they have no means of regulating themselves that doesn't involve the state. They will shoot all of society in the foot for profits and then need bail outs. Competition always creates monopolies. Market production has no real feedback mechanisms vs planned economies that are actually "intelligent" in the sense that they respond to actual need. And not to the fictitious "supply and demand" that all capitalists talk about but has no real mechanism other than buying.
This is false and a false dichotomy. Command economies are a disaster. Totally unregulated economies have never been done. What works is an inbetween, trending towards less regulated.
There can be no democracy when there is so much money on the line. Where do your interests fit into this?
Fit into what? You haven't said anything besides war for oil, which isn't what happened.
Your criticisms are fairly bad but founded in a little truth, but your solutions are horrific. None of your ideas are new or interesting in the year 2024, this has been done and covered to death. There is just zero reason to be having this conversation.
You wish you could associate my commie arguments with your bullshit reverse-psychology anti-semitism. I'm a commie.
Anti-semitism is a stupid scapegoat for stupid people, white christian capitalists will still screw you over you dumb fuck. In fact, white christian capitalists are actively doing that right now, but you probably have some unconfirmed loophole about "its actually the joos".
why do you keep using "poor" when it's just Americans in general and when the stereotypical image/staunch supporter of each side is petit boug farmer/small biz owner for team red and PMC WASP for team blue.
I mean...not even economists know how that shit works, its why every economic prediction almost always fails. It's why insider trading is the only stable form of market manipulation lol.
Lincoln was a Whig. He also didn't free any of the slaves. Instead his plan was to deport every single black person back to Africa. Monroe later carried this plan out on a voluntary nature.
The democrats in the south were certainly not liberals. They were small government conservatives. The northern states supported a large federal government because it was better for businesses at that time.
Is this satire? The vast majority of people in the north still supported slavery and calling the southerners liberal? This has to be satire maybe Iām falling for b8
We didn't really apply the left right labels in those days, so judge those actions and words according to the definition of left and right.
Left wing ideas favor change and egalitarianism. Right wing ideas support traditon and hierarchy.
They might have been Republican Christians doing it, but they were objectively left wing Christian Republicans that were freeing slaves and guaranteeing civil rights, because those acts are absolutely and indisputably progressive and egalitarian.
The Northern Progressives we know of today are a splinter from the old Northern Republicans that you mentioned. The Progressive movement originally stood for "progressively increasing slavery"
Southern states actually did complain. Virginia wanted to stop importing slaves because it was lowering wages, but they would just come in through New York anyway.
They (criminals and POWās) were sold to us by their African kings as trade. Not chased down with nets and carried off as prizes thrown over their shoulders.
People wonder why that part of the population is so problematic and it literally all stems from sending their worst over and then those blood lines continue on lol
The fanatically religious Europeans fled Europe because, at the time, European nations wanted uniformity in religion. Although the British stopped doing that in 1689, other European countries continued to do it. Which is why thereās a LOT more religious idiots here in USA compared to most other western countries.
"per usual". I don't know who you are, how have you come up with this? And you were the one making the unsubstantited, bald statement. If you wish to have an argument, feel free to substantiate. The reality of the slave trade is that it was driven by western powers - principally the UK, who paid local tribes to raid and capture slaves from other rival tribes.
1) Abolition began in the South. Abolition would have been completed in the South before the North, but the South's view on the role of government forbade it from ending slavery by decree. The people had to end it.
2) Slavery began in the North, not the South.
3) The North had slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free one of them.
4) The Northern Slave industry was shut down not on moral grounds but because when the South Succeeded, they banned foreign slave trades. The North didn't free their slaves or their stock of slaves, they merely stopped importing more.
5) Many old banks made their money as part of the Northern Slave Industry.
6) Lincoln swore he would never free the slaves and the war had nothing to do with slavery. Grant echoed this sentiment saying if he found out Lincoln was trying to free the slaves he'd defect to the south and fight Lincoln.
7) Unrelated, but the North Killed 1 million blacks in the South during the civil war. Of the surviving 3 million, only 300,000 went northward.
8) Unrelated, but interesting fact 2. The first slave owner was black. The largest slave owner was a black family.
Mostly Mizrahi from the Amsterdam-London community who were also were a major part of antebellum southern society but totally ceased to exist as a relevant sociopolitical group after the war, while every modern relevant Jew is an Ashkenazi who moved over in the 1880s-1890s from Germany/Poland/Russia (the so called Ostjuden)
It held back the south a lot, without cotton and tobacco slavery holding the economy hostage they probably would have been forced to industrialize like the north to keep up. Instead we were stuck with human labor for many many more years and some deep racial issues that continue to this day. All around horrible trade.
Anon has a lot of property, on the monopoly board.
He just keeps buying and buying and buying, he never sells, heās not a sellout. Heās mister money bags, but now heās just bored, out of his freaking mind. Freaking out? over digits and decimals? No heāll hackivate that. Heās not worried, about the paperwork. He has people, working under him, and above him, theyāre all working in overtime. Theyāre all trying, to undermine him, but heās not scared, heās never scaredā¦thatās what makes him a mastermind, am I right??
Whether people like it or not, the slave trade was a perfectly legal and then-acceptable transaction. Abolishing slavery was basically theft from those who legally invested their money into their farms and fields.
The stupidest part of this is that capitalists in the southern states, no, in all states depend on undocumented people for labor. Especially in heavy blue collar work and farm work.
Without them you lanky suburb waights couldn't get your little packaged salad packs at Costco.
If it wasn't for that it'd be other americans (white and black) working in the fields for pennies. American politics is just a bad joke. Keep thinking the TV is your friend.
If it's not happening right now it's because it cant. Undocumented labor is a pillar of the U.S. economy. No matter what fox news tries to say. Your little lettuce packs, your roof, your lawn. Its all undocumented or outsourced and the companies are in on it. They just want regular people to think it's bad so they can get you to vote for this or that.
"it will be offset fwom the oder savings", lol, bullshit from a sheltered suburban
"My country was pure", kek
The "anti-immigration" thing is a gimmick. It does wonders for their payroll. It's basically easy contract labor, no benefits and relatively lower pay and work long hours.
In Trump's first term, when getting illegal labor became harder, companies were forced to employ Americans for higher wages than they'd have paid their illegal labor.
Remember, when the employers can't use the threat of deportation, they can only offer proper wages to get the labor they need.
Thatās why I always say we should be spending more money going after companies that hire illegal immigrants in the first place. It would be a more effective use of funds and free actual jobs up for legal residents.
spanishdictlover@reddit
Right wingers and conservatives and Christians were anti-slavery and lived in the Northern states. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and so were the congressmen who approved the Civil Rights act. People are so ignorant these days. The liberals in the south supported slavery.
snrup1@reddit
ThE pArTiEs SwItCheD
ShottyBlastin101@reddit
They did bro are you stupid. š
FremanBloodglaive@reddit
You cannot point to a single policy point on which the Republicans switched with Democrats.
You could say that the Democrats adopted a more extreme version of the Republican platform.
The Southern States went Republican in the 1990s, not the 1960s.
dinglebarry9@reddit
Yes you can, LBJ and the civil rights act. It was a transition process like changing gender. Except the conservative put on white robes and swastikas in public instead of dresses, they still wear those at home.
MoonSnake8@reddit
āIāll have those *** voting Democrat for 200 yearsā
Ahhh yes LBJ was totally not racist and no ulterior motives. He did everything out of the goodness of his heart right?
dinglebarry9@reddit
Not only is the quote of questionable origin but even if it was you only prove my point as a perfect encapsulation of a switch
MoonSnake8@reddit
Didnāt you already say that?
nub_sauce_@reddit
Ahhh yes the questionable quote that mysteriously showed up 30 years after it is supposed to have been said, whose ONLY source is one single book author who is retelling a friend's retelling of the story, also known as a second hand rumor.
There's no evidence that LBJ ever actually said that
PeterFechter@reddit
There is a switch happening again where the Republicans are slowly becoming the party of the working class and the Democrats the party of the higher income "elites".
dinglebarry9@reddit
Taking away workers and womenās rights is not very working class centric policy, neither is gutting unions or really anything in project 2025. Thank god they were stupid enough to put all of their policies in print so when smooth brains say dumb shit we can just point to the project 2025 website and all of the staffers that work for the poop pants orange man that work for Heritage.
XcRaZeD@reddit
The working class party led by a working class billionare lmfao
jhor95@reddit
Nobody is clean, just ask Bernie Sanders
Terrasel@reddit
The look on his face in the audience at the convention after Clinton had threatened to have his family killed was absolutely haunting.
PeterFechter@reddit
It is, Republicans these days tend to be the party of the non-college educated, lower income man.
myeyesneeddarkmode@reddit
But their leadership is anti union, and cuts taxes for the rich at the expense of the working class.
Terrasel@reddit
Republicans are not anti-union, anymore. You need to catch up.
This year the Republicans invited the teamsters to the table, meanwhile the Democrats refused to have the teamsters as part of the convention.
The Democrats are not for the American people. They're for exporting our tax money to foreign powers, replacing Americans with immigrants, and murdering babies.
MoonSnake8@reddit
āAt the expense of the working classā
Citation needed
Macslionheart@reddit
Growing redistribution of the wealth going towards the upper class statistically more and more of the āpieā is going to upper class than the middle class and thereās countless papers to prove this
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/
MoonSnake8@reddit
Oh so you do think itās 0 sum.
Thatās wild. Not sure why youād admit that.
Macslionheart@reddit
Wdym 0 sum? What am I admitting is 0 sum and what do you mean by that
MoonSnake8@reddit
Ohhhh I understand now.
You donāt even know what 0 sum means so you are unknowingly saying you think the economy is 0 sum. That makes much more sense.
Like I said kid, the brainrot is setting in. You really need to go outside to help slow it.
Macslionheart@reddit
First of all whatever comment where you mentioned brain rot is deleted so I only saw the beginning š¤·āāļø second I never claimed it is zero sum that would mean middle and lower classes arenāt also getting more prosperous which if you read the link I sent at all that would show my argument, obviously the world is growing richer however the rate at which percentage of wealth and amount is dramatically going to the wealthy more than the non wealthy so wealth inequality is growing. On a theoretical note the world economy could possibly be zero sum if you look at the impoverished third world nations that are taken advantage of but thatās a school of thought not my argument at all.
Also bro says brain rot then calls me š didnāt know this was call of duty lobby talk
TheCreepWhoCrept@reddit
Itās still in transition. The head of the teamsters spoke at the last RNC for the first time and declined to endorse a candidate for the first time in decades. Previously theyād only endorsed democrats. The tax cuts also included the working class and in no way came at their expense.
Setting that aside. Even if their platform was āFuck the poorā, thatās not really what their comment was talking about. They were remarking on an observable statistical fact. When you look at party demographics the right is mostly non college educated working class and the left is mostly college educated and from a variety of work environments.
For presidential campaign contributions, the left is mostly major corporations and the right is individual donors. Conservatives tend to live in poorer rural areas while liberals live concentrated in wealthier cities.
It also makes sense from a historical perspective. The lower classes are always more reactionary than the progressive upper classes. I could actually go on and on.
Itās just an observable trend that Republicans are increasingly the party of the working class, while Democrats are increasingly not.
Alex_2259@reddit
The party advocating and supporting that group of people, or targeting them in the way cigarette companies target their demographic?
Authoritarian populist ideology doesn't give a rip about the people it's boot stamps on.
PeterFechter@reddit
Sure, but they still need their votes and in order to get that they have to throw them some bones from time to time. You seem to be under the impression that there are good and bad guys at this game.
Alex_2259@reddit
They throw billionaires more bones than anyone else, the only bones they throw actual people are words, propaganda and culture war topics.
I also didn't say anything about good guys, don't put words in my mouth. The good guys won't appear on the ballot, because to get that far you have to have oligarch backing; so being "good" becomes impossible.
XcRaZeD@reddit
It's also true that the people who have historically fought for the rights of manual labour jobs are progressives. Modern day republicans are anything but.
PeterFechter@reddit
The progressives are morons and they don't have much say in what the Democrats do, which are increasingly aligning themselves with the corporate elite. Just look around you, almost every major corporation in the US is towing the line of the Democrats now. MAGA Republicans have alienated the business class.
childroid@reddit
Tax cuts for the wealthy is a working class value now?
PeterFechter@reddit
Everyone got a tax cut.
Macslionheart@reddit
Statistically the TCJA has been estimated to help the top 1 percent more than any other group according to every paper I read
MoonSnake8@reddit
So?
If a policy helps you 10% and the rich 25% would you not prefer that over a policy that helps you 2% but hurts the rich 5%?
Macslionheart@reddit
Whatever comment youāre tryna get me to see you mustāve broke something on TOS cause itās not showing š¤·āāļø
MoonSnake8@reddit
Iām not trying to get you to see a comment.
What are you talking about?
Macslionheart@reddit
Lmao idk dude I get the notification and see the preview of some of your comments but they donāt actually show likely for some TOS reason idk š¤·āāļø
MoonSnake8@reddit
Thatās incorrect.
Either way get off your phone. You literally talk like a brainrotted TikTok kid.
Macslionheart@reddit
Bro wot š obviously imma a tax cut either way even if it benefits the rich more that was never my argument however to make a tax plan that you claim does so much for the working class yet actually ends up doing a lot more for the upper class is misleading at best especially when the middle class tax cuts were so extremely minuscule I donāt see the point of your argument is it just be happy with whatever scraps are thrown to use while the rich get way bigger benefits?
EverythngISayIsRight@reddit
When you learn everything on reddit then it's obvious how you came to that conclusion
Macslionheart@reddit
Umm no I didnāt learn it from Reddit? Did you not read where I said every paper that Iāve read?
EverythngISayIsRight@reddit
Every paper you read from reddit?
Moistened_Bink@reddit
How are republicans becoming the party of the working class?
surlygoat@reddit
By manipulating the less educated into voting against self interest
papertowelfreethrow@reddit
Conservative values
PeterFechter@reddit
Not condemning unions as much anymore and going after the woke business community.
RigidPixel@reddit
This is just straight up untrue lmao
JoeFalchetto@reddit
So the US parties switched with LBJ and the Civil Rights Act?
MrDaburks@reddit
Is this bait or did you run out of lithium?
Macslionheart@reddit
Democrats used to be conservative now theyāre not republicans used to be liberal now theyāre not
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
Republicans definitely didn't use to be liberal. The Republicans were born from the Whigs, who themselves came from the Federalists. The Republicans were pro-big government when it was crucial for the operation and expansion of capitalism to the American West. The Democrats have been economically populist for the entirety of their existence. Why do you think Boston and New York were voting Democrat in the 1850s? When Abraham Lincoln won Massachusetts by a landslide in 1860, why do you think Boston was by far his weakest part of the state? The parties did not change. The Democrats have been left-wing since the 1850s, and left-wing populists since the 1890s.
Macslionheart@reddit
Wrong republicans were actually considered very liberal for their time obviously compared to now not so much but starting a party that is anti slavery was obviously very liberal the parties obviously changed what you are failing to remember is there were southern democrats and northern democrats both that had different values parties were more coalitions of multiple groups rather than one brain think machines that they are now
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
Holy run-on sentence batman. The point is that the Republicans have been the economically right-wing party for the entirety of their existence as a party, and have also been identifiably ideologically tied to conservatism for a length of time predating their party. Just because the South started voting for Republicans in the last 30 years doesn't mean Republicans weren't inarguably committed to conservatism through the 19th century and 20th centuries. Woodrow Wilson believed in white supremacy, but he was inarguably much further left than Charles Evans Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt publicly identified as a conservative, Calvin Coolidge is idolised for his conservatism, and Abraham Lincoln was literally a Whig (read the ideology section, which lists them as "traditionalist conservative") before becoming a Republican! With the benefit of basic historic facts, you cannot say with any degree of intellectual honesty that the Republicans have not been the more conservative party from inception to today.
Macslionheart@reddit
Bro š¤¦āāļø first of all starting anti slavery party is a very liberal thing to do lol so that blows your argument out of the water in the first place and second if you think any one party has kept the same economic platforms for a majority of their existence you would also be dead wrong. Republicans started promoting their economic policies that we see today in around the 1920s with the whole hands off approach that eventually led to the Great Depression. You are right in that republicans started being conservative over time in the 20th century because thatās the whole basis of the āparty switchā
Even if we take a core republican policy like tariffs they were initially strongly pro tariff then eventually embraced open trade and only in recent times are promoting tariffs again.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
You lack a basic understanding of political theory and 19th and 20th century American history. For one, the most famous and influential conservative theorist in history was Edmund Burke, who famously wrote in opposition to slavery, and whose writings were influential among abolitionists. Abolition is not an inherently left-wing cause, it's actually an inherently classical liberal cause. Classical liberalism is the intellectual bedrock of modern small-government conservatism. You're also completely wrong about the timeline and substance regarding Republican economic policy. The Republicans were always the most staunch advocates of industrialisation and capitalism. You should start by reading about the Fuller Court and Lochner Era, and then you should look at which party appointed those judges. Then you should read about William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson. If you want to see why you're wrong about the foundations of the Republican party, look into the core beliefs of its two direct predecessor parties, the Whigs, and the Federalists before them. You completely failed to engage with any substantive examples from the 19th and early 20th centuries which blow gaping holes in your premises. You also have a tenuous understanding of the reasons behind the Republican support for import substitution.
Macslionheart@reddit
Youāre completely wrong dude like I said there multiple examples that can be looked at such as tariffs republicans were pro tariff then they were anti tariff then now theyāre pro tariff again same with free markets and government intervention , same way there were pro big business republicans there were also pro big business democrats in the north along with those republicans.
Abolition while under the tenets of classical liberalism is till a progressive cause and it was considered that way during the time as well you literally cannot argue that anything about abolition is at all actually not progressive.
What you fail to understand is not only has the political spectrum of right and left changed over time along with what is considered radical and what isnāt radical you also fail to remember neither one of these parties have ever been completed monoliths when it comes to how their many different members believe hence why you have things like teddy Roosevelt splitting and Barry Goldwater Dixie crats democrats and republicans in then north etc etf the only intellectually dishonest thing here is to try to claim there wasnāt an obvious switch in many beliefs of the and the constituents the constituents that vote for them.
I donāt wish to continue this argument I heavily disagree with you however if you have some good sources you can send me for me to read in my own time that support your argument please send and Iāll read it but Iām def done with this discussion
Nevek_Green@reddit
They used to be progressive. Progressive at the time referred to pushing Classic Liberalism. Terms switch and maintaining classical liberal values became conservative. Same idea, different view based on predominance. Liberal comes from Social Liberalism, aka marxism lite.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
They weren't really socially progressive aside from abolitionism, and those factions of their party began migrating to the Democrats starting in the 1890s. And the Republicans nominated extremely conservative justices from the 1880s. The Fuller Court, the most economically conservative court (while also being highly socially conservative) in American history were all Republican appointees. The New Deal was stymied by Republican justices for as long they could manage it. To suggest the Republicans were consistently to the left of the Democrats in American history on any issue other than abolition is an untenable notion. And that fact holds true with their predecessor parties (the Whigs, and before them the Federalists).
Lonely_Cosmonaut@reddit
Theyāre both liberal. Americans have a political literacy of a 4 year old.
Vivio0@reddit
What is considered not liberal to you?
MoonSnake8@reddit
Heās using the wordās actual definition.
Vivio0@reddit
I see what you mean. Not the modern idea of āliberal.ā
TheBullGat0r@reddit
"bro the parties didn't change ideology at all the democrats are just Uber Republicans"
SubtracticusFinch@reddit
So... what's the point? When I look at politics now, I know both parties are shit but there's one that I align more with than the other.
Slade23703@reddit
Trump?
Salaino0606@reddit
Ok , and?
ShottyBlastin101@reddit
Hurr durr cause of the great party switch r tard
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Viciuniversum@reddit
Yes, the party switch, a favorite talking point among Democrats. The Democratic Party started in the 1820s, and right from the beginning, it showed its true colors by advocating for the removal and extermination of Native Americans. Their opposition, the Whig Party, was against the Indian Removal Act and promised to protect minorities from mob rule. Because the sides were "switched," the vast majority of the Whig Party was anti-slavery.
Eventually, a rift over slavery led anti-slavery members of the Whig Party, including Abraham Lincoln, to exit and form the Republican Party. Interestingly, the parties must have "switched again," because it's now common knowledge that Republicans are considered the racist ones.
Then, the parties "switched" when Democrats were primarily the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slave owners were Democrats. Not a single Republican in history ever owned a slave. And yet, the parties must have switched once more when Republicans repudiated slavery while Democrats defended it, leading to the Civil War.
The parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated the Republican President Lincoln. After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, Republicans attempted to pass several civil rights amendments granting citizenship to freedmen. In this case, Democrats opposed giving former slaves citizenship, though the amendments passed despite their resistance.
The parties switched once more when Democrats founded the Ku Klux Klan as their militant arm. They then tried to pass the first gun control laws, intending to disarm black Americans and prevent retaliation against their former owners. A county even proposed a law making it illegal to possess firearms unless you were on horseback. (Wonder who was riding around terrorizing people on horses? š¤) Gun control has always been a noble cause for Democrats, but the origins of it were rooted in racism.
Around this time, former slaves fought for gun rights, and the NRA was founded. Interestingly, the NRA "switched sides" too, when they defended the right for black Americans to arm themselves, and white NRA members protected black people from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, a battle fiercely opposed by Democrats. The nation saw a wave of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by Democrats in the KKK. The parties switched once more when Democrat Bull Connor attempted to avoid prosecuting the bombers, and when black Americans protested, he unleashed police dogs and fire hoses on them. He also gave stand-down orders to police when the KKK attacked the Freedom Riders.
The parties switched yet again when a Democratic president appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court. And the switch happened once more when FDR, another Democratic president, ordered the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Later, Democrats filibustered against the second set of civil rights laws that aimed to protect minorities. The parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
And here we are in modern times, where the parties continue to "switch" all the time. For instance, the parties switched when Democrats proposed policies like affirmative action, which limits opportunities for some racial groups to grant privileges to others. The parties switched again when Islamic fundamentalists, like Omar Mateen, and other ISIS-aligned mass shooters threw their support behind Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties are still in the process of switching, as evidenced by liberal student groups at universities like UCLA and Berkeley calling for segregated housing for black students. The latest switch happened when the Democratic presidential nominee told black Americans, "You're not black" if they didn't vote for him, revealing how the Democratic Party views its largest voter base as their property.
And letās not forget, the current president once said he didn't want his kids growing up in a "racial jungle." He also referred to Senator Robert Byrd, a former KKK member, as "one of his mentors." After all, if you donāt vote for him, "you aināt black!" Because, apparently, African Americans are expected to think and act as a collective. And due to party switching, itās now perfectly acceptable for Democrats to call a black Republican candidate an āUncle Tomā or the āblack face of white supremacy.ā
So, as you can see, because of the party switch, Democrats were always the ones who stood against racism and fought for peace and unity, while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones sowing division and discord.
ThirstyOutward@reddit
Literally nothing you wrote has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Which is that there was a deliberate strategy by Republicans to gain the southern white vote by adopting racist and anti black policies.
This is well documented and not some conspiracy lmao
Theroux721@reddit
"Literally lmao" -zoomtardĀ
ThirstyOutward@reddit
Wrinkled hands typed this
Spoiled_Mushroom9@reddit
I wonder if these dipshits think the democrats from over a hundred years ago are still alive. Otherwise who gives a shit what they stood for a century ago, it's their stances now that matter.
doom335@reddit
You realize joe biden who is one of those is the president right?
Mashidae@reddit
Idk man I don't think he's over a hundred years old yet, he certainly wasn't politically active that long ago
Macslionheart@reddit
You obviously donāt know what youāre talking about no one is making any claim older democrats werenāt racist the party switch is a long time swap of the parties demographic and certain ideals obviously there is a switch because the conservative south which use to be hard democrats is hard republican and same for the north you gotta be blind to ignore that and you can point to many racist things republicans did over time too š¤¦āāļø the same way democrats had multiple rifts in their party republicans also had the same which resulted in them losing some elections itās obviously not cut and dry but āparty switchā refers to this course of events
Theroux721@reddit
They don't teach you how to use periods and commas in Berkeley?
Terrasel@reddit
Jinkies, everyone is racist!
Especially people trying very hard to avoid looking racist.
Macslionheart@reddit
I mean yeah! A lot of people even until now are racist even Abraham Lincoln said he wouldāve liked to send them all back to Africa or that freeing the slaves didnāt matter as much as saving the union etc etc
Theroux721@reddit
The only acceptable copypasta
fourthwallcrisis@reddit
pretty legendary comment tbh.
Themustanggang@reddit
Itās almost as if time changes things and you should vote on current issues not past ones.
Idgaf if democrats in 1860 wanted slaves, the democrats today want better social support, affordable health care, womens rights to their out anatomy. Actually holding buissness accountable, stopping industrial pollution, protecting state and national parks, not taking away birth control, stopping plan 2025 which would cripple veteran care.
If you vote based on past issues you should rope. If you donāt like anything I mentioned above, you should probably rope too cause thatās pathetic.
Raus-Pazazu@reddit
Remind me which party the KKK votes for today? Is it the evil racist Democrats? What about the Neo-Nazis? Which party do they downballot when they get into the booths? Is it the liberal party? How about all those 'The South Will Rise Again!' folks clamoring for Civil War 2 who want to break off and own slaves again. Are they Harris supporters?
Get your fucking house in order.
ihatemalkoun@reddit
Damn that's rough buddy.
Or congratulations on getting married! š š šĀ
Theroux721@reddit
Stellar argument, per usual
Nevek_Green@reddit
Terminology switched, not the parties. When the Republicans were the progressive party, Classic Liberalism was a new idea that was reshaping how politics and governments were structured around the world. In the 1900s classic liberalism had firmly established itself so conserving it became conservative. Prior conservatives referred to conserving the old order from Europe. In the early 1900s Social Liberalism (Equity over Equality) rose in the west and became progressive.
A lot of the rot in both parties came from former whiggs.
shangumdee@reddit
More like the south switched around the 1960s/70s. However people take this and think the parties just completely changed their values.
TheEternalGazed@reddit
If that were the case, Calvin Coolidge must have been a staunch liberal and FDR was super conservative.
Bagelsandjuice1849@reddit
I mean they didnāt switch on everything, but it is just a fact that the Democrats of the mid-19th century were the party of social conservatism and diplomatic isolationism, while today they are socially progressive and diplomatically interventionist (though so are the Reps when it comes to foreign wars). The Republicans on the other hand were socially progressive for their time unlike their conservative descendants, though in some aspects they were similar to their modern counterpart, for example theyāve always been the more pro-business party from what I understand (unless that business was slave-owning).
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
The Republicans were always the "conservative" party. They directly descended from the Whigs, who were themselves descended from the Federalists. Both were ideologically traditionalist conservative parties. The Jacksonian Democrats were actually the ones who fought to expand the franchise to all white males in the 19th century, while the Federalists and Whigs fought to keep the franchise restricted as much as possible. The Republicans of the 19th century could be far more reasonably associated with Burkean Conservatism than they could be with progressivism.
Bagelsandjuice1849@reddit
But isnāt that cutting out the free soil party and the radical republicans? Fair point about Jackson though, slipped my mind.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
The Republicans, by nature of their ties to abolitionism, had factions which included left-wingers. But their abolitionism was as much or more rooted in economic self-interest and classical liberalism as it was in rights-based arguments. The plantation economy of the South were in complete opposition to the economic disposition of the North, such that the former desperately needed low trade barriers to sell their products profitably to the Continent, while the latter pined for high trade barriers to shelter their burgeoning industry from British manufacturing output. People in the North rationally supported abolitionism because it would allow for import substitution and facilitate rapid industrialisation, which slavery stood in the way of. "Progress" in those times, was as much a matter of industrial expansion as it was a question of social emancipation, in the sense that these goals were largely intertwined.
Bagelsandjuice1849@reddit
Of course, Iām not arguing that the Republicans werenāt economically liberal, but Iām saying that that was progressive for their time. I think we are in agreement.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
They may have been "progressive" for their time economically, but they were inarguably the "conservative" party, in the Burkean tradition. The Republicans came from the traditionalist conservative tradition of their two direct predecessor parties, the Whigs, and the Federalists before them.
Bagelsandjuice1849@reddit
I think that slavery and the southern planters were much more ātraditionalistā than the northern capitalists. Even Marx himself supported the Union for exactly that reason.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
Largely incorrect. The Jacksonian Democrats were the progressives for their time on every issue other than slavery. They supported a large and expansive federal government, but most importantly they supported expanding the franchise to all white males, while the anti-Jacksonian parties largely fought against this expansion, seeking to maintain the barriers of property requirements (for example) to franchise. Why do you think that every partisan opponent of the Democrats (and their predecessors the Democratic-Republicans), the Federalists, the National Republicans, the Whigs, are all described as ideologically traditionalist conservative. It seems like you have a terminal case of presentism and ideological blinders, but more importantly lack understanding of both basic and crucial elements of the first and second party systems.
Bagelsandjuice1849@reddit
I suppose thatās fair enough, and you do probably know more about this period than I do, but Iād still say that ending the outdated economic system of slavery constitutes progressivism for the time, even if they were conservative in other aspects.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
It all comes down to interest convergence. It was in the interest of industrialists to have cheap labour and high tariffs. Emancipation would both lower wages by increasing the size of the labour force, while also allowing them to erect high tariff barriers to keep mass-produced British goods out of the United States and ensure a captive American market. These industrialists would sooner have far sooner restricted the franchise to propertied males (so they could effectively dictate economic policy themselves), but if all white males were to be enfranchised, it served their interests vastly better to also end slavery.
XcRaZeD@reddit
Think long and hard about the people who fly the confederate flag and who they vote for
Take all the time you need.
Nevek_Green@reddit
The Confederate Flag represents States Rights, not slavery. INB4 someone says right to do what, States Rights is a concept referring to the State's ability to self govern as opposed to a centralized system.
nub_sauce_@reddit
A state's ability to self govern on exactly which issue?
Ah, that's why neo-nazi groups fly the confederate flag, isn't it
Nevek_Green@reddit
Nice Non-Sequitor.
nub_sauce_@reddit
are you illiterate? It's directly related to what you said
You claimed, erroneously, that the confederate flag does not represent slavery. If that's true then what the hell do neo-nazis fly the flag for?
shangumdee@reddit
You're confusing the parties changing foundations as whole with the south switching.
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
THEY DID CHANGE THEIR FOUNDATIONS.
Have you not read the policy platforms of each one???
Have you looked at Wikipedia and seen what is listed under each partyās āIdeologyā sections??
Holy hell, how deeply fucked are these MAGAheads that seriously believe the GOP is the āliberalā party??? Goddamn yāall are dense as hell.
Theroux721@reddit
Muh heckin' wiki that only accepts far-left sources supports my claims!
nub_sauce_@reddit
That's just blatantly not true at all, aka wrong. Wikipedia accepts any credible source, maybe ask yourself why conservatives often struggle to maintain credible conservative sources. Like they have a couple like the CATO institute but those are one in a million in a sea of lies, exaggeration and political fuckery
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
Bruh, if you seriously think the Associated Press is āfar-leftā, I have a bridge in Kansas to sell you.
Yāall conservatives have a problem of not being able to prove your claims, you just go on vibes and misinterpretations of evidence. Itās sad.
Very low energy, very weak. Canāt even own up to accepting that your āsourcesā might be wrong.
Itās like that stupid cat and goose-eating myth up in Springfield, OH. The best conservatives could come up with were wild claims by totally not compensated conservative city activists going to a city hall meeting saying that āimmigrants ate my pet cats!ā
Need more solid evidence than that. Donāt trust shit at face value. You donāt even need to trust the AP. Itās easy to verify for yourself claims that mainstream media makes.
kissmibacksidestakki@reddit
The point is not that the GOP are now liberal, but that they have always primarily been a conservative party. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig before the Republican party was formed. Just because both parties were more mixed at one point doesn't change that fact.
cell689@reddit
Sir, this is a Wendy's...
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
This is a damned Burger King, gimme my royal crispy wrap. š¤Ŗ
VaksAntivaxxer@reddit
They did. Lincoln literally corresponded with Karl Marx.
Theroux721@reddit
And "literally" always precedes an untruth, so everything works out.
nub_sauce_@reddit
No Abraham Lincoln really did exchange letters with Karl Marx. This is obscure but basic history
Theroux721@reddit
Then he used "literally" incorrectly incorrectly
nub_sauce_@reddit
Meaning he used "literally" correctly, in its literal definition
Green__Bananas@reddit
You really think they didnāt?
Macslionheart@reddit
The parties values and demographics obviously switched š
qpwoeor1235@reddit
Yes Abe Lincoln would fit in well with the modern republicans and their confederate flags
genericusername0421@reddit
A dare you to call a klansman a Democrat lmao
for_the_meme_watch@reddit
The demarcation line between north and south east coast USA in mid 19th century America was the mason DIXON line. South of that is Dixie land. It originated from Louisiana but became popular via Alabama, as the heart of Dixie. What was the major party of the South? The Democratic Party. What was the name of one of their internal branches of the party? The Dixiecrats. What was their flag? The Stars and Bars Confederate Battle Flag. I dare you to name the side which carried that flag into battle. Iāll give you a big hint, it was Johnny Reb and the CSA
Do me a favor and find a klansmen so I can call his heathen Dixie secessionist ass a democrat because he is so.
genericusername0421@reddit
David Duke, Grand Wizard of the KKK, Republican.
for_the_meme_watch@reddit
Sorry. Been laughing at this dumb ass response for the last 17 hours.
Why donāt try to guess when the KKK was founded and who by. Iāll give you a big hint: mid 19th century post THE CIVIL WAR by the guys who lost.
What a dingleberry. Acts like David Duke invented the damn kkk in the 70s. Jesus Christ I hope you never go into history based academia
Theroux721@reddit
Throwback to when the Klan endorsed Hillary because of Trump's hair and some no-name California Marxist tried dismissing it with a paradoxical claim
genericusername0421@reddit
Ah yes, switching your endorsement mid election cycle to the liberal candidate whoās party is fundamentally pro black and Jewish. Gee, I wonder why the Grand Wizard of the KKK would do that lmao
Theroux721@reddit
Wonder what the mental gymnastics for LBJ not being a Republican.
genericusername0421@reddit
Donāt know anything about that. I do know however that the libs worship black people and minorities like itās their job. Not sure where that aligns with Klan policy.
FremanBloodglaive@reddit
In the 1980s they all were, and in the 2020s there's not enough of them to be worth counting.
genericusername0421@reddit
Thats a gigantic lie, David Duke was grand wizard in the 80ās when he served as a republican for Louisiana. The larpers waving around swastikas today certainly arenāt voting for Kamala.
BanEvadingAcct21@reddit
Less important who they vote for and more important who they work for.
TiredPanda69@reddit
American politics have no basis that the common working person can relate to. The only talking points for the poor are abortion, immigration, "taxes", and "inflation", double quotes because nobody actually knows how taxes, subsidies and inflation works.
And then the few images you want to associate yourself with, hard working republican christian "common sense" family, the educated "rational" racially conscious liberal. It's all cartoons and role playing for the poor.
None of these parties can represent the little guy full stop.
canacata@reddit
They talk about jobs, cost of living, crime, culture. What are they supposed to talk about?
TiredPanda69@reddit
I say it's like cartoons for the poor cause it's all fake images to entertain you and make you think you're a part of something. It's all posturing based on the image you want to identify with. Voting is making pinky promises with the rich.
Jobs? What about jobs? They think giving subsidies and cutting taxes for mega-corps is creating jobs, but those mega-corps do not have a job quota and the government doesn't legally enforce the job-creation process. They're literally just giving money away to mega-corps and saying it makes jobs.
Cost of living? What about it? The "free" market is allergic to most price-controls. How are you going to force a massive land holder to regulate prices on their apartments? Isn't that communism? "Muh government forcing citizens" Cause the rhetoric implies that a massive Real Estate Trust is a citizen too. A billionaire land holder is a normal citizen like you and me right? You can't force them because then walmart will get scared. Uber will freak out, Tyson foods will think twice.
Crime? Fix poverty you fix crime. Selling drugs is a job people do for money, that's it. They also want to make you think it's forbidden, but drug trafficking is a standard part of the economy, they just don't admit it. If you could make taxless billions in an un-regulated industry like drug trafficking, wouldn't you make sure it was kept illicit?
Culture? Culture barely exists. It's whatever some algo is shoving down your throat and you wish to identify with. That's culture. Whatever people see you as and you want to see yourself as mediated by social media, TV, movies, and the internet at large. Culture is basically what they allow you to identify with.
canacata@reddit
So this is what I expected. Because they are not doing communism it's all meaningless.
Companies don't need 'job quotas' to make jobs. If they get more money they reinvest it in the company which leads to more jobs.
Then apparently markets are bad because you can't force landlords to implement rent controls.
The problem is you frame this in a general way, but all your complaints come down to specifics about them not doing communism. This is like if someone went on about the culture being messed up, then said it was because the culture wasn't fitting itself to Buddhist ideals well enough.
Anyways your entire worldview has been totally falsified and is of no interest to anyone anymore.
TiredPanda69@reddit
You literally believe in trickle down economics. When they give em millions CEO salary increases and stock buybacks as well.
And Markets are bad because they have no means of regulating themselves that doesn't involve the state. They will shoot all of society in the foot for profits and then need bail outs. Competition always creates monopolies. Market production has no real feedback mechanisms vs planned economies that are actually "intelligent" in the sense that they respond to actual need. And not to the fictitious "supply and demand" that all capitalists talk about but has no real mechanism other than buying.
Imagine your whole infrastructure being owned by individuals. Absurd right? What about walmart? That feeds millions and is for-profit. It's basically a public service for private profit. National Security involves protecting walmart because of their massive position in the daily lives of millions of americans. An absurd model.
Walmart is a national interest. Corruption is inherent. And that's just one example. Imagine how many wars have been fought to protect private interests in the name of the public. Y'all get sent to your graves for oil tycoons. It's a mafia and all you get are the shadows on the wall.
There can be no democracy when there is so much money on the line. Where do your interests fit into this?
canacata@reddit
This observably happens. Trump did it.
This is false and a false dichotomy. Command economies are a disaster. Totally unregulated economies have never been done. What works is an inbetween, trending towards less regulated.
Fit into what? You haven't said anything besides war for oil, which isn't what happened.
Your criticisms are fairly bad but founded in a little truth, but your solutions are horrific. None of your ideas are new or interesting in the year 2024, this has been done and covered to death. There is just zero reason to be having this conversation.
WoopDogg@reddit
Trump did what? The tax cuts didn't change wage or job growth.
teleologicalrizz@reddit
Hey, cool it with the antisemitic remarks.
TiredPanda69@reddit
You wish you could associate my commie arguments with your bullshit reverse-psychology anti-semitism. I'm a commie.
Anti-semitism is a stupid scapegoat for stupid people, white christian capitalists will still screw you over you dumb fuck. In fact, white christian capitalists are actively doing that right now, but you probably have some unconfirmed loophole about "its actually the joos".
-Canonical-@reddit
its a line from American Psycho, chill out
TiredPanda69@reddit
yeah, cool movie, figured he was being a moron with movies as an excuse
Terrasel@reddit
You didn't recognize the line.
edbods@reddit
there we go, that's sounding more semitic
TiredPanda69@reddit
"hurr durr, bait is the only form of retort I have because i posses almost no critical thinking"
-you
Terrasel@reddit
That only took two replies before your facade of "high-minded commie" just crumbles to reveal your gooey goblin center.
All commies are kindling.
edbods@reddit
oy vey. retort to what? i'm not the same guy you replied to lol
LEDDITmodsARElosers@reddit
Let's see Paul Allens antisemitic remarks.
leodermatt@reddit
which part was antisemitic?
Nerd_254@reddit
why do you keep using "poor" when it's just Americans in general and when the stereotypical image/staunch supporter of each side is petit boug farmer/small biz owner for team red and PMC WASP for team blue.
did you mean proles or what
TiredPanda69@reddit
Because Americans don't think of themselves as poor but If you need credit to afford basic necessities like a car and a house that means you are poor.
Most people who vote have no effect on politics, most people are poor. That's why i say poor.
Beneficial_Exchange6@reddit
You donāt actually know how quotation marks work do youā¦
SlySychoGamer@reddit
I mean...not even economists know how that shit works, its why every economic prediction almost always fails. It's why insider trading is the only stable form of market manipulation lol.
NoPossibility4178@reddit
And?
Nevek_Green@reddit
Lincoln was a Whig. He also didn't free any of the slaves. Instead his plan was to deport every single black person back to Africa. Monroe later carried this plan out on a voluntary nature.
taco_blasted_@reddit
You had a good comment going until you wrote this catastrophically regarded sentence.
wuzgoodboss@reddit
Can't believe the dems transitioned from being Dixiecrats to whatever the fuck they are right now. Awful downgrade
SanguShellz@reddit
Because the north were Copperheads and the south were Dixiecrats. Think of it as a coalition.
atchman25@reddit
The democrats in the south were certainly not liberals. They were small government conservatives. The northern states supported a large federal government because it was better for businesses at that time.
papertowelfreethrow@reddit
Idk why i had to scroll so far to see this
65694309@reddit
they prefer revisionist history to support their narrative
EnergiaBuran@reddit
So you hate Confederate scum and you're 100% pro Union, right?
lobotominizer@reddit
dude so many zoomers think Abe Lincoln is democrat LOL
Macslionheart@reddit
Is this satire? The vast majority of people in the north still supported slavery and calling the southerners liberal? This has to be satire maybe Iām falling for b8
canacata@reddit
This is nonsense. The Republicans were a far left party. Abolitionism was a product of leftist Protestantism.
kitcurtis@reddit
Not gonna jump into politics, but Jesus was white.
Soggy_Cheek_2653@reddit
Lincoln was pro-mass deportations as well IIRC
Curiouso_Giorgio@reddit
We didn't really apply the left right labels in those days, so judge those actions and words according to the definition of left and right.
Left wing ideas favor change and egalitarianism. Right wing ideas support traditon and hierarchy.
They might have been Republican Christians doing it, but they were objectively left wing Christian Republicans that were freeing slaves and guaranteeing civil rights, because those acts are absolutely and indisputably progressive and egalitarian.
nez9k@reddit
And here I thought we all left "liberals are the real racists" and "conservatives are the real progressives" behind in 2018 where they belong
TheNewOP@reddit
The Northern Progressives we know of today are a splinter from the old Northern Republicans that you mentioned. The Progressive movement originally stood for "progressively increasing slavery"
Khalixs1@reddit (OP)
A real shame what happened to the American left
ChristianRecon@reddit
Southern states actually did complain. Virginia wanted to stop importing slaves because it was lowering wages, but they would just come in through New York anyway.
Trollzek@reddit
They were documented.
They (criminals and POWās) were sold to us by their African kings as trade. Not chased down with nets and carried off as prizes thrown over their shoulders.
LEDDITmodsARElosers@reddit
People wonder why that part of the population is so problematic and it literally all stems from sending their worst over and then those blood lines continue on lol
myeyesneeddarkmode@reddit
If that were true, shouldn't Australia have a high crime rate?
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
The British stopped shipping convicts in 1868.
The fanatically religious Europeans fled Europe because, at the time, European nations wanted uniformity in religion. Although the British stopped doing that in 1689, other European countries continued to do it. Which is why thereās a LOT more religious idiots here in USA compared to most other western countries.
myeyesneeddarkmode@reddit
Surely that's about when the US stopped importing slaves, isn't it? Isn't that the literally same year lol
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
Nope, USA stopped importing slaves nearly 200 years later in 1808.
NEETscape_Navigator@reddit
And shouldnāt Africa be the pinnacle of prosperity since they got rid of all their worst bloodlines?
AtomicSymphonic_2nd@reddit
Corruption, my friend. Itās alive and well across the global south.
Setkon@reddit
...or the numbers weren't high enough
Feynmanprinciple@reddit
It would be high if we actually prosecuted white collar crime
HYDROHEALER@reddit
Its called alice springs
surlygoat@reddit
Astonishing untrue.
Theroux721@reddit
Stellar argument, per usual
surlygoat@reddit
"per usual". I don't know who you are, how have you come up with this? And you were the one making the unsubstantited, bald statement. If you wish to have an argument, feel free to substantiate. The reality of the slave trade is that it was driven by western powers - principally the UK, who paid local tribes to raid and capture slaves from other rival tribes.
keeleon@reddit
So you could say they weren't sending their best,
canacata@reddit
Specifically they sold us their criminals and bums and whatnot. Infer from that what you will
ChaunceyPeepertooth@reddit
Get out of here with your hate-facts!
Nevek_Green@reddit
A few historical facts.
1) Abolition began in the South. Abolition would have been completed in the South before the North, but the South's view on the role of government forbade it from ending slavery by decree. The people had to end it.
2) Slavery began in the North, not the South.
3) The North had slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free one of them.
4) The Northern Slave industry was shut down not on moral grounds but because when the South Succeeded, they banned foreign slave trades. The North didn't free their slaves or their stock of slaves, they merely stopped importing more.
5) Many old banks made their money as part of the Northern Slave Industry.
6) Lincoln swore he would never free the slaves and the war had nothing to do with slavery. Grant echoed this sentiment saying if he found out Lincoln was trying to free the slaves he'd defect to the south and fight Lincoln.
7) Unrelated, but the North Killed 1 million blacks in the South during the civil war. Of the surviving 3 million, only 300,000 went northward.
8) Unrelated, but interesting fact 2. The first slave owner was black. The largest slave owner was a black family.
Darnok15@reddit
Itās different when you come to build a country and come to an already prosperous country
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Sevnarus@reddit
Except itās not just illegal immigrants without documents that right wingers are against. The Haitians were fully documented.
p4th_m4k3r@reddit
Who owned the boats
Firlite@reddit
Mostly Mizrahi from the Amsterdam-London community who were also were a major part of antebellum southern society but totally ceased to exist as a relevant sociopolitical group after the war, while every modern relevant Jew is an Ashkenazi who moved over in the 1880s-1890s from Germany/Poland/Russia (the so called Ostjuden)
LEDDITmodsARElosers@reddit
David Goggins. He still talks about carrying them to this day.
Paradox@reddit
Walton Goggins you mean
SabreToothSandHopper@reddit
Waltesh GoggensteinĀ
p4th_m4k3r@reddit
No that's something else
tyschooldropout@reddit
Only 63% of the boats! Totally coencidental
zkn1021@reddit
oy vey
Dan_Backslide_III@reddit
I HATE slavery so much!
I wish that North America had never been a part of the slave trade!
It was pure evil.
Individual_Time_7914@reddit
Or at least they could have processed them the way the Arabs did.
Dan_Backslide_III@reddit
I donāt know if I can agree with you on that, but Islam has some very good ideas about how to treat women and homosexuals.
NEETscape_Navigator@reddit
It must be true since western lesbians love to advocate for mass immigration of muslims.
Spacewasser@reddit
To this day, I think they just have a secret rape kink
rascalrhett1@reddit
It held back the south a lot, without cotton and tobacco slavery holding the economy hostage they probably would have been forced to industrialize like the north to keep up. Instead we were stuck with human labor for many many more years and some deep racial issues that continue to this day. All around horrible trade.
BullofHoover@reddit
They also had cargo manifests.
Some were illegal immigrants (Clotilda) but that was harshly punished.
boredgames40oz@reddit
Anon has a lot of property, on the monopoly board.
He just keeps buying and buying and buying, he never sells, heās not a sellout. Heās mister money bags, but now heās just bored, out of his freaking mind. Freaking out? over digits and decimals? No heāll hackivate that. Heās not worried, about the paperwork. He has people, working under him, and above him, theyāre all working in overtime. Theyāre all trying, to undermine him, but heās not scared, heās never scaredā¦thatās what makes him a mastermind, am I right??
TheThirdBallOfSand@reddit
what?
PlzDontBanMe2000@reddit
This is just like when people say that āblack people were stolen from Africaā no, they were purchased, from other black people.Ā
Orion7734@reddit
Whether people like it or not, the slave trade was a perfectly legal and then-acceptable transaction. Abolishing slavery was basically theft from those who legally invested their money into their farms and fields.
YinuS_WinneR@reddit
This is why some countries banned salve trade and not slavery. If you bought a slave before this keep it but once it dies no new slaves for you.
xologram@reddit
slavery was never abolished. it just changed a model whereas now you rent slaves. they went for subscription model
TiredPanda69@reddit
The stupidest part of this is that capitalists in the southern states, no, in all states depend on undocumented people for labor. Especially in heavy blue collar work and farm work.
Without them you lanky suburb waights couldn't get your little packaged salad packs at Costco.
If it wasn't for that it'd be other americans (white and black) working in the fields for pennies. American politics is just a bad joke. Keep thinking the TV is your friend.
canacata@reddit
No, not for pennies. For whatever wages it would take to get Americans to work in the fields. Which would likely be rather high.
TiredPanda69@reddit
If it's not happening right now it's because it cant. Undocumented labor is a pillar of the U.S. economy. No matter what fox news tries to say. Your little lettuce packs, your roof, your lawn. Its all undocumented or outsourced and the companies are in on it. They just want regular people to think it's bad so they can get you to vote for this or that.
canacata@reddit
Illegals are a massive net negative. If labor costs go up it will be more than offset by the other savings.
TiredPanda69@reddit
"it will be offset fwom the oder savings", lol, bullshit from a sheltered suburban
"My country was pure", kek
The "anti-immigration" thing is a gimmick. It does wonders for their payroll. It's basically easy contract labor, no benefits and relatively lower pay and work long hours.
FremanBloodglaive@reddit
Akshully.
In Trump's first term, when getting illegal labor became harder, companies were forced to employ Americans for higher wages than they'd have paid their illegal labor.
Remember, when the employers can't use the threat of deportation, they can only offer proper wages to get the labor they need.
atchman25@reddit
Thatās why I always say we should be spending more money going after companies that hire illegal immigrants in the first place. It would be a more effective use of funds and free actual jobs up for legal residents.
But nah, expensive wall instead
canacata@reddit
Labor isn't the only reason they come. The cost of the wall is nothing compared to what is pissed away.
TiredPanda69@reddit
That would tank industry profits, and since the capitalists want high profits they will raise prices for the consumer.
Undocumented labor is a fundamental part of the U.S. economy, they just don't say it out loud.
electric-guitar@reddit
"We need slaves because SOMEBODY has to pick the cotton"
FremanBloodglaive@reddit
And the center of trade for the United States was New York.
Remember, it was the "trans-Atlantic slave trade).
Slaves came in, goods went out.
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ReallyDumbRedditor@reddit
I depend on them for the permitless taco stands they set up on the sidewalks
LEDDITmodsARElosers@reddit
Makes sense a leaf would say something so stupid.
canacata@reddit
What point is that picture supposed to be making?
InfusionOfYellow@reddit
Word association.
SignalBattalion@reddit
Lol
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
[removed]
AutoModerator@reddit
Sorry, your post has been removed. You must have more than 25 karma to submit posts to /r/4chan.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
ThePowerWithinX@reddit
Bad bot
lidocainum@reddit
slavery was a mistake
Cool-Comedian5597@reddit
That is a transparent sex toy
WOMMART-IS-RASIS@reddit
slavery wasn't popular either
IlikebigTDs@reddit
Don't touch our boats.
coby1107@reddit
Don't compare slaves to people coming voluntarily you fat cow. You polish clown
-terry