How come I never see the argument that "Republicans and Democrats switched sides en masse after the Civil War" on /pol?
I see it EVERYWHERE else, but I never see it here. I realize the argument is complete shit, but that doesn't change the fact that liberals buy into it.
>>138821241
go to sleep d'souza I don't wanna buy your book
>>138821241
Not really an argument bud, just a fact.
>>138821241
because its irrelevant.
but...but it wasn't after the civil war, it was arguably after civil rights + the entire industry of the south and population completely changing
>>138821241
because /pol/ supports the southern democrats,jim crow and segregation.
George "1488" Wallace was /ourguy/
that argument is cuckservatism 101, accusing your enemy of being the REAL RACIST
>>138821241
It's one of libs most retarded arguments and anybody who espouses it should be chained to the back of a house
>>138821241
Is that Macaulay Culkin? Damn he got fat after Pizza Underground...
>>138821241
Because which party is the party that's going to slurp the nigger penis is a fight that goes on between the two sides of the same coin known as the democrats and republicans. It's all a bunch of pass the racism virtue signalling. We all know why both parties are jockeying over each other to get all the mudslimes voting for them, so who really cares?
>>138822577
hello RCMP
>>138822001
no, it's not a fact.
Democrats can't even agree on "when" it took place. It's just a theory that falls apart the moment you actually start analyzing it.