When did the left and right switch parties?

[Heatblizzard]

It seems recently the left are now like the old right and the right are now like the old left where the left are 'stuck in their ways' refusing to see how their cities are literally falling apart from within while the right are being more open about things without being too open to the point where you cannot operate a business if you disagree with the government.

[Good Night Owl]

Neither have switched places. Each side just does a common tactic that seems to work on people because people are super gullible. It's a secret tactic passed down by ancient monks...

Blame the other person for the thing you did.

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por Good Night Owl:

Neither have switched places. Each side just does a common tactic that seems to work on people because people are super gullible. It's a secret tactic passed down by ancient monks...

Blame the other person for the thing you did.

The only solution is to make infalliable robots who never trade on the people's trust.

[Haruspex]

Escrito originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

The switch is a myth...

It happened, but it wasn't overnight.

I think even you mentioned in another thread that "Republicans won the civil war.", which is true. The Confederacy was Democrat. The Union was Republican. However today if you see someone flying a Confederate flag off the back of their lifted pickup, any guesses as to which party they're registered to vote for? do you think they vote for Democrats?

Edit: Fixed to account for technicality. Point is they certainly aren't Biden voters.

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por Haruspex:

Escrito originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

The switch is a myth...

It happened, but it wasn't overnight.

I think even you mentioned in another thread that "Republicans won the civil war.", which is true. The Confederacy was Democrat. The Union was Republican. However today if you see someone flying a Confederate flag off the back of their lifted pickup, any guesses as to which party they're registered to vote for?

Libertarian?

Maybe they don't vote at all? 70% chance you know.

[pasa]

"Left" and "right" are just arbitrary terms that only good to create confusion. They originate from what -- how parties happened to sit in the French parliament at some timepoint? The international socialists sitting to the left, the national socialists to the right and the rest somewhere in between? So the two ideologies that are almost identical were painted as *opposite* extremes?

But it served the aim well: to keep the audience confused and jumping on all kinds of false targets while the totalitarians can thrive.

OP probably just sees some of that: lot of pundits that were supposedly on opposite side got revealed as members of the same uniparty. Hardly a switch, just the wind blew the curtain.

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por pasa:

"Left" and "right" are just arbitrary terms that only good to create confusion. They originate from what -- how parties happened to sit in the French parliament at some timepoint? The international socialists sitting to the left, the national socialists to the right and the rest somewhere in between? So the two ideologies that are almost identical were painted as *opposite* extremes?

But it served the aim well: to keep the audience confused and jumping on all kinds of false targets while the totalitarians can thrive.

OP probably just sees some of that: lot of pundits that were supposedly on opposite side got revealed as members of the same uniparty. Hardly a switch, just the wind blew the curtain.

well one of these sides was a transparent Aristocracy proxy, and the other had alienated all leftists by manipulating the moderates to favor their own policies. In the same way the aristocracy would have.

so they were both fascist ultimately.

[Your_White_Knight]

Escrito originalmente por Heatblizzard:

When did the left and right switch parties?

It seems recently the left are now like the old right and the right are now like the old left where the left are 'stuck in their ways' refusing to see how their cities are literally falling apart from within while the right are being more open about things without being too open to the point where you cannot operate a business if you disagree with the government.

When did you actually think there's a difference?... anything to stay in power...

[pasa]

Escrito originalmente por DonkeyDong64:

The left used to be very anti censorship

I don't remember anything like that. Sure, they were against censorship of THEIR ideas for good. When did they stand up against censorship of anything they didn't agree with?

Wasn't the media in the USA completely in left's hand? With conservative audience getting nothing with to mention? Until one billionaire decided it's good business op and created Fox News to cover exactly that? And once that happened wasn't all the rest honking endlessly to shut it down yesterday?

So, can you elaborate what you were referring to?

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

The party system is just a smokescreen, the same lobbyists control both. The rhetoric coming out of any politician's mouth on either side can be accurately assumed to be complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 99.99% of the time. Political talking points and stances on "issues" are just marketing tactics and have nothing to do with the beliefs or planned actions of any individuals, and certainly don't reflect either party's overall objective.

Maintaining the illusion that the parties are "different" serves the stagnant, progress-allergic status quo in two main ways:
1. It creates a false sense of choice.
2. It ensures that at most 50% (ish) of people will agree on any given stance, effectively preventing mass public organization.

At least in their modern incarnation, the existence of "different" parties is merely a function of a unified theory and mechanism of populace control.

[Birds]

Escrito originalmente por OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

The party system is just a smokescreen, the same lobbyists control both. The rhetoric coming out of any politician's mouth on either side can be accurately assumed to be complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ 99.99% of the time. Political talking points and stances on "issues" are just marketing tactics and have nothing to do with the beliefs or planned actions of any individuals, and certainly don't reflect either party's overall objective.

Maintaining the illusion that the parties are "different" serves the stagnant, progress-allergic status quo in two main ways:
1. It creates a false sense of choice.
2. It ensures that at most 50% (ish) of people will agree on any given stance, effectively preventing mass public organization.

At least in their modern incarnation, the existence of "different" parties is merely a function of a unified theory and mechanism of populace control.

Aren't you just encouraging them to do it with this frenzied analysis?

Escrito originalmente por pasa:

Escrito originalmente por DonkeyDong64:

The left used to be very anti censorship

I don't remember anything like that. Sure, they were against censorship of THEIR ideas for good. When did they stand up against censorship of anything they didn't agree with?

Wasn't the media in the USA completely in left's hand? With conservative audience getting nothing with to mention? Until one billionaire decided it's good business op and created Fox News to cover exactly that? And once that happened wasn't all the rest honking endlessly to shut it down yesterday?

So, can you elaborate what you were referring to?

Well you're being very negative why would they?

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

Escrito originalmente por Birds:

Aren't you just encouraging them to do it with this frenzied analysis?

Encouraging who to do what?

If you mean the parties/politicians, they don't care what anyone says or thinks lol.
They will blindly continue 'business as usual' until 'business as usual' literally burns down.

Political types are systemically ignorant of even the basic functions and events of the real world. The continuous tone-deafness of their comments and actions makes that more than clear.

[sleeps]

how can you be a "true" fascist without extreme nationalism?

[Ulfrinn]

Escrito originalmente por mori:

how can you be a "true" fascist without extreme nationalism?

Probably because they're not related.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Escrito originalmente por davidb11:

Escrito originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

Nope, never happened. And what exactly do you think switched?

People always say the parties switched but what does this mean to you...in this fantasies of yours what switched? The political parties history? The politicians? All the voters? Did anti-gun people suddenly become pro-gun people?

Why do the old Democrats support destruction of minority communities, and we see modern Democrat groups doing the same thing? Summer of Love anyone?

And the point of Robert Byrd is he was a Democrat Senator who was also in the Klan. If the parties switched and those racist Democrats magically turned into Republicans, what's he doing there?

Sir, are you literally ignoring what I wrote?
The switch was before that.
it's illegal to ignore what I wrote because it's the truth.

The Democrats at the time of Robert Byrd originally had the views the Republican party had.
And vice versa.

It's well documented that their views switched.

I explained this very simply.
In the 1890s, both parties switched their views and the Republicans at the time started agreeing with what the Democrats said and again, vice versa.

Maybe 1880s.
But literally googling this will prove it's real.
You can't argue with something you can google and find out.
That is how the Flat Earthers have failed. Because they don't know how to google apparently. :P

Seriously, please stop making up blatant incorrect statements.
You are disrespecting Chuck Norris, and I can assure you, the real Chuck Norris will not take kindly to you.

Seriously, everyone knows that the Democrats now are the Republicans of the 1800s.
People even explained this in this thread.

You are not allowed to ignore the evidence that was posted here.
Also, stop being obsessed with Robert Byrd.
It's kind of creepy.
He's been dead a long time.

Well the problem with "YOUR TRUTH" is we're not talking about your truth, we're talking about reality.

And the reality is that so-called switch that the Democrats claim happened, supposedly happened in the 1950-60's, not the turn of the century.

And the Democrats of Robert Byrd had Republican views? You realize Robert Byrd wasn't some ancient KKK senator, the dude was a Senator up until he died and he died in 2010.

Both Obama and Joe Biden went to his funeral and said he was a great man, and you think the Democrats of Byrds Time were actually Republicans? So like Obama was actually a Republican?

And it looks like you can't point to any views that actually switched places, and given that you've completely made up the post about Robert Byrd I'm guess you don't actually know of any of this.

As for Flat Earthers...umm the side that believes in the Great Switch thinks men can get pregnant and women can have a penis, so I don't think your Flat-Earth example works how you think it does. It's pretty clear of the two sides which one is rational and which one simply makes up facts, like Robert Byrd/Obama secretly being Republicans.

[Your_White_Knight]

Escrito originalmente por Ulfrinn:

Escrito originalmente por mori:

how can you be a "true" fascist without extreme nationalism?

Probably because they're not related.

Pretty much... "nationalism" ~can~ be part of being a fascist... but it doesn't ~need~ to be...

Besides there's "identification with one's own nation and support for its iidentification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations interests"

And there's

"identification with one's own ~group~ and support for its iidentification with one's own ~group~ and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other ~groups~ interests"

The Left identifies with "groups" not with "nations"... either way it's fascism with WHO you identify with... not that it's a nation or not one's nation

"democracy" "Left" 'SJWs" can be fascists in all but name... that's just a label they like to throw on others yet practice the same ideals themselves... authoritarian views and a strong central government... and no tolerance for opposing opinions.

The word "Fascist" itself traces to the Italian word "fascio" meaning "group, bundle." if one bothers to actually understand the word... not just use it as a buzzword...

Edit... copypasta error lol