Is it true the Democrats and Republicans switch sides? I'm

>>1452353
Not really. Both parties have changed over time so I wouldn't say they switched sides.

the American political parties are almost always changing platforms in response to new challenges and new political climates. Hell the Republican Party today and the party during Reagan in 1980 shows a stark change, especially on immigration.

but to put it simply, each party is almost constantly changing and switching positions to better court the public vote, as that's the goal. If holding a political position is going to guarantee lost votes, then a party will abandon it for something else pretty fucking fast.

>>1452353
When the American (and British) electorate showed signs of shifting to the right in the 1980s, pragmatic Democrats (and Labourites) like Clinton (and Blair) felt the need to repackage themselves as "center-left", remaining more liberal than the Republicans while couching their policies in language that was less threatening to the right and center populace.

Meanwhile, in a separate process, the Republicans, who had always relied on less-government and more-faith-in-the-market planks, found themselves in a string of severe recessions (1993, 2000, 2008) that were only kept from disaster by extensive government involvement in the marketplace, and found themselves demanding more of the same.

Just this week at the Republican convention, key speakers demanded government underwriting of the coal, gas and oil industries, condemning the Democrats for not providing it and promising that Trump would intervene in the free market to do what in any other age they would have denounced as socialism.

>>1452353
If they did change sides it probably happened sometime in the 90's, not the 60's.

Even if both have done a complete 180 on social issues their economic issues are pretty much the same since both parties inceptions.

Before the 90's it was common to find southerners who were distrustful of corporations or had some socialist sympathies. Look up Huey Long

>>1452414
>key speakers demanded government underwriting of the coal, gas and oil industries

The Republicans have almost always been for this, if for no other reason than a decent portion of their party funding comes from these industries.

They switch everytime they other one takes the presidency
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are babby tier idealogies that people stop having once they learn a single thing about politics anyway

Republicans and Democrats are basically the same. Their only disagreements are simply circumstantial.
Sure some people inside the party might be very different, but the core ideals of the party are the same.
Why USA is considered a democracy when you must be either black or white on every election is simply amazing.

File: Commie socialist scum!.png (50KB, 683x467px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 683x467px

>>1452353
Well, the republican party used to free slaves and protect unions. Now though...

>>1452353
There's a block of toxic morons called the Dixiecrats who destroy every party they're attached to.

>>1452745
Now they want to stop the importation of slave labor and the undercutting of Union wages. They mean to do this by cracking down on the 11 million illegal residents of this country who are forced to work for less than minimum wage by immoral employers. Democrats oppose this because "who will pick the fruit?"

Rly maeks u think :(

>>1452353
Yes because what republicans want used to be new and modern ideas and as the world has moved forward they still stick to it but its old ideas.

I think they are switching sides right now. If Trump succeeds, specially, the Republican Party can become a populist, nativist party voted by the working class of all races, while the Democratic Party will be the elitist party of the globalist middle and upper classes.

If Trump loses is business as usual, the Republicans being voted by stupid Christians and southern whites clinging to their privileges and the Democrats being everyone else who hate Christians and southern whites.