2307
Comments (82)
sorted by:
57
Beat_to_Quarters 57 points ago (edited)

He also refused to endorse an anti lynching bill which actually could have been relevant in the 1930s instead of 2018, for fear of losing the southern white Democrat vote. But this guy's image is still squeaky clean while every other historical figure down to Lincoln is getting smeared. Isnt it interesting how the "parties switched" and they adore FDR, even though he tried to suck up to southern racist democrats? I guess he switched before the rest of the party lmao.

29
NotoriousCIC 29 points ago

The left trying to claim Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and then saying everything after 1965 is different has to be my favorite example of mental gymnastics.

10
LeftistsAreInsane 10 points ago

That's nothing. I recently saw a viral marketer on OAN's website claiming the mythical switch happened in the 1910s.

19
quigonkenny 19 points ago

That wouldn't be a smart argument for them. Woodrow Wilson was arguably the most racist President in history. Literally showed a Klan propaganda film in the White House.

14
Raindrops1984 14 points ago

Lyndon B Johnson would be a close second with his disgusting statements about the welfare program.

2
3
K-Harbour 3 points ago

It was not about putting his face on the dime, it was about removing Liberty’s face from the dime.

11
adawk91 11 points ago

robert byrd, known KKK member, and longest serving senator ever, died in office in 2010. He was a democrat who both filibustered and voted against the 1964 civil rights act.

3
edxzxz 3 points ago

It takes a very deep, deep dive into old newspaper articles and transcripts of tapes, but Nixon got so fed up with the D's in congress torpedoing all his potential SCOTUS nominees, he seriously considered nominating Byrd just so he could force the left to shoot it down - aside from his KKK role, he also failed the bar exam multiple times, and never actually practiced law. The NYT commentary on the (intentionally) leaked story that Nixon was considering Byrd as his nominee is astonishingly ridiculous - 'yeah, he was a KKK recruiter and Grand Cyclops, but that was waaaay back almost 10 whole years ago, lots of people were in the KKK back in those olden days' - it's absolutely insane the mental gymnastics they employed to make Byrd seem like a credible SCOTUS nominee. https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/10/archives/robert-byrd-considered-for-supreme-court-seat-robert-byrd-is.html

1
AndrewLB 1 point ago

So Woodrow Wilson was a Republican? I still can't get a lib to explain how this works other than my deduction that the parties switch literally ever decade or so based on whatever events they want to claim as their own at the time.

See... it can't be between WW2 and the Civil Rights Act because that would make FDR a Republican, which is beyond laughable.

It can't have happened post WW1 because that would make the League of Nations a Republican creation, which is even more laughable.

Pre WW1? So wait.... the progressive party of the United States, Margaret Sanger, etc were Republicans? Hahahahahaaa!!!

The truth of what happened was there was a large migration of Europeans both after the first World War and the Second. These immigrants and their children (my grandparents and parents) caused major demographic shifts, especially in the south which had a much lower population. This is what pushed the Dixiecrats from power, along with the nations overall change in sentiment towards their racist policies.

A very similar, yet in the opposite direction, demographic change happened here in Kalifornia over the past 30 years, changing control of a state built by Republicans into the current controlled demolition being imposed by democrat party and their policy of sustained illegal immigration and eventual amnesty.

Did Kalifornia switch parties? Nope. The state still has more republicans than any other state in the nation. They simply lost power due to massive illegal immigration. If California's delegates were allocated on a proportional basis, the Democrats would never win another Presidential Election.

0
StaryHickory 0 points ago

It did switch exactly then. But so many brain dead moo moos here are too simple to understand it. It's like talking to 6 year olds around here.

The progressive era totally changed the face of the Democrat party. They went from the party of the small rural American who wanted a limited government to the fabian dreaming leviathan they are today.

And that started early in the 20th century (And it was not just in our country). But just continue to focus on RACISM RACISM and forget about the 90% of everything else that is obvious if you look.

Andrew Jackson was the man behind founding the Democrat Party. In no way does he look similar to FDR. He abolished the central bank while FDR expanded the role of the bank by banning gold ownership.

We have people who just know almost nothing and what little they do know they substitute for everything else. We have people who will admit there was a progressive era but refuse to admit that in order for that to happen someone had to buy in on all the progressive bullshit.

Same parties but completely different political trajectory overall. Someone had to change their platform. Who was it I wonder?

5
LeftistsAreInsane 5 points ago

I already knew about the progressive era and its results (federal income tax, Federal Reserve, etc.).

The OAN commenter was claiming a party switch on racism, which never occurred, much less in the 1910s.

3
StaryHickory 3 points ago

Yeah ok I agree with that. I need to read what they wrote.There must be something to it. But there is no disputing the Republican party was always against slavery and other issues affecting blacks. It became a legacy of sorts.

1
AndrewLB 1 point ago

You truly think the parties have switched? Please explain why, contrary to the nonstop lies from the left, that it was the Republican party who has led the way in Civil Rights consistently since the 1850's? Every single major civil rights legislation passed between then and the 1960's was approved by Republicans by a far wider margin than democrats, and in many cases these laws were overwhelmingly opposed by the Dems.

https://imgur.com/qSucpbm

1
StaryHickory 1 point ago

Its more than just civil rights. The Republicans ran that because of the Civil War and their involvement in it and the outcome. So they rode that horse all the way through the 20th century.

But if you look at personal freedom, small government, limited spending. The parties absolutely swapped. The Democrat party of the 1800s was the agrarian small government party, and the Republicans were more of a mercantile party who expanded the power of the federal government tremendously once the war was over and there was no real political opposition left.

This kind of a setup went on up until the start of the 20th century when Democrats took up the cause of Democracy and progressivism. At that point we had really no party for small government and for a decent stretch of the early 20th century there was a vast expansion of the state.

Income Tax Federal Reserve Bank Social Security Senators elected by citizens

And so on. FDR was a catalyst though for a reorganization of the Republican party. And this started more or less a consolidation of small government types into the Republican party. Nothing is as cut and dry as described. For much of the 1900s a lot of states, especially in the south voted blue as dixiecrats or bluedog types. Texas being among them. So in some parts they still were sending small government democrats to DC, but the makeup of the party was definitely more or less big government.

The Republicans have never been for REAL small government. The party that kind of carried on what I would call Jeffersonian ideals was the old democrat party which really died at the turn of the century of the 20th century.

So you have to look at more than just slavery and civil rights. That is one issue, but not all there was. The other point being is that when these changes occur you effectively have two parties doing the same thing, so a huge expansion of the government occurs. We have seen the exact same thing, but to a lesser extent, with the Republican Rhios...and it's why we had a Tea Party revolt.

4
PartTimeHick 4 points ago

Woodrow Wilson was unironically a Nazi.

45
Rokaroo 45 points ago

White liberal women love to accuse me of being a racist white male. I ask them what party FDR was and if he’d be a Republican today because of the “party switch”. After they say no he’s a democrat then and now, I ask them how they have the audacity to stand there and tell me to vote for a party that put my wife’s Grandparents in concentration camps.

That’s when the queue the angry brow NPC.

16
Bolo 16 points ago

Error: Logic.exe not found. Running: Emotion.exe

9
_TheConsumer_ 9 points ago

FDR destroys the Party Switch.

Modern Dems say that 1865-1968 Dems are today’s Republicans. That places segregation and opposition to civil rights on modern Republicans.

But modern Dems consider FDR to be a god of their party. He existed in the 1930s.

So that would mean modern Dems are glorifying a Republican or the party switch never occurred. To put things in perspective, FDR was hated by Republicans in the 30s, and is hated by them now. He could never be considered a Republican. That leaves us with: the party switch never happened.

1
AndrewLB 1 point ago

They also lionize the early 1900's progressive era, which is also a huge monkey wrench in their bullshit factory. THe parties never switched. The reason the south went Red was due to demographic shifts due to massive immigration after the first and second world wars and the ever increasing sentiment against the racist dixiecrat policies, pushing them from power.

Its how the democrats turned California blue, with massive immigration from nations that they knew would vote for them.

7
dakkath 7 points ago

Elaborate for my ignorant ass this morning please. What significance does the party switch question come into play? If he was D back then, but switched to R (during the "fake party switch bullshit") then wouldn't that then back their claim R's are racist?

Or am I missing something here. Apologies I haven't finished my coffee yet.....

12
Raindrops1984 12 points ago

They claim that sometime between 1910 and 1990, the Democrats and Republicans all got up in the middle of the night, changed the nameplates on their desks, and the voters did a Scooby Doo switcheroo. Bingo bango bongo, the Dems have always been the party of the people, and we were always at war with Eurasia.

6
Juanye 6 points ago

They claim FDR still because he was one of the only D presidents to accomplish anything. But it makes no sense that they claim him if the parties did indeed “switch”. The parties didn’t switch at all, Nixon implemented the failed southern strategy and they say that this makes the dems all of a sudden not racist. The mental gymnastics are nuts

5
dakkath 5 points ago

ahhh.. OK. that's the part I was missing.. thank you.

Yeah, the mental gymnastics of this shit is crazy. They must do this on purpose to fuck w/history and hide their true origins.

I mean for fucks sake he put a Klansmen on the SCOTUS. wtf.

2
_TheConsumer_ 2 points ago

Nixon was good at tapping into a nationwide resentment over judicial activism and erosion of traditional values. He captured a lot of people who were moderates and fence sitters. Add to this the fact that he wanted peace in Vietnam.

It is very telling that the man who rallied these groups was left holding the bag of a crime he didn’t order.

2
Juanye 2 points ago

Yes. And he also had race riots going on that were driving people to him as well. I am not saying I agree with that premise (that Nixon was racist), just that this is what they teach kids in school or whatever.

3
_TheConsumer_ 3 points ago

I first heard of the party switch in college. Of course, it was phrased by my professor as “Nixon was racist and he promised to return the blacks to servitude. All racists voted for him, and the modern day Republican Party was born.”

The minute you think critically about it, and how the parties couldn’t have switched, you realize that the entire story is fan fiction.

4
harrybalsagna 4 points ago

The parties never switched. Over the course of 200 years a lot has changed in politics. Back then democrats were for a smaller government and more states rights. Republicans were for a stronger federal government. This is the only thing that switched and like I said, a lot has happened in the interim that changed the way we interact with our government and it would be stupid to say there was a "switch" as that implies that people thought a certain way one day then all of a sudden changed their mind, or that people switched parties which never happened besides african americans voting for democrats in the 30's due to the great depression and the necessity for stronger safety net programs in cities.

2
wharfthrowaway 2 points ago

He got them to commit to the party switch happening before FDR, meaning they have to own all the horrendous shit Dems have done from FDR and onward.

2
dakkath 2 points ago

KEK. Love it.

2
spaceforceltc 2 points ago

The New Deal. Anyone who claims that the New Deal would be something modern Republicans would have implemented would be flat out idiotic. That is the gotcha.

2
Filo76 2 points ago

Obviously he was a democrat who switched to being a republican when he put Japanese Americans in internment camps then switched back to being a democrat. Jeesh do you even read history? I took a semester of history at my local community college so I know everything now.

/s <-- Do I need this? I wasn't sure if I was being sarcastic enough...

2
Rokaroo 2 points ago

Lmao you def don't need that

19
InebriatedDaily 19 points ago

"As the M.S. St. Louis cruised off the coast of Miami in June 1939, its passengers could see the lights of the city glimmering. But the United States hadn’t been on the ship’s original itinerary, and its passengers didn’t have permission to disembark in Florida. As the more than 900 Jewish passengers looked longingly at the twinkling lights, they hoped against hope that they could land."

"Those hopes would soon be dashed by immigration authorities, sending the ship back to Europe. And then, nearly a third of the passengers on the St. Louis were murdered."

https://www.history.com/news/wwii-jewish-refugee-ship-st-louis-1939

12
NYRepublican72 12 points ago

These Democrats love racist Woodrow Wilson, too, who pretty much presided over the KKK's rebirth.

10
NotoriousCIC 10 points ago (edited)

The Birth of a Nation was premiered at the White House by Woodrow Wilson which was a giant recruiting tool for the rebirth of the KKK. It's incredible that Dems get to just pass their sins off to someone else.

I can't wait til I'm 100 years old and get to hear about how the Republicans pushed for the SJW causes and the trans stuff after the parties "switch."

8
CovfefeAnon 8 points ago

A man would walk up to the newsstand every morning, check the headline, mutter something, then go about his business. This continued on for years and years. Finally, the owner asked the man why he only glanced at the headline, and seem angered by it. "I am looking at the obituary," the man responded. "The front page isn't where they print obituaries." "When that SOB finally dies, it will be the headline."

7
Friar_Pede 7 points ago

Hugo Black was the klansman he nominated.

6
mathteach314159 6 points ago

I must admit that I hate that this is what it has come to. If we play along with these games, I fear we will simply help in the complete destruction of western civilization. That is their goal, lets not help them achieve it.

That being said, this is clever.

5
DontTreadOnThee 5 points ago

Not only this, he stole ALL wealth by enforcing the people to give up their gold! With his executive order. Wealth stolen

Executive Order 6102 1933

5
_TheConsumer_ 5 points ago

FDR destroys the Left’s narrative that there was a party switch.

Here’s the Left’s timeline:

From 1865-1968, Democrats were today’s Republicans. This conveniently places all Jim Crow and segregation on the Modern Republican.

From 1968 - Present, Democrats became the SJW/Blue Collar Party. Republicans continued to be racists.

Except there is a problem with that: Modern Democrats believe FDR is a party hero. According to their timeline, he existed before the party switch. So he would be a modern day Republican by their standards. Except no modern Republican, or Republican from the 1930s, identified with him, or particularly cared for him.

The Party Switch is a lie. I disputed it in college, and I continue to dispute it.

4
TheBasedFriscoMan 4 points ago

Two words: Donkey Privilege

4
Light_HIV_Effect 4 points ago

Incredibly, the most racist presidents by any measure in the past century have been democrats:

  1. Wilson

  2. LBJ

  3. FDR

  4. Obama

  5. Clinton

4
Block_Helen 4 points ago

Don't forget attempting to pack the courts.

And the tiny little extra thing, his horrible fiscal policies exacerbated the financial crisis and extended the Great Depression - on purpose. To pave the way for socialism.

All pedes should read The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes.

3
Flptplt 3 points ago

This talking point is so ineffective. None of these people care what the Democrats did 50 years ago or a hundred years ago. The people on the left are opportunists, they are lazy and they want free stuff. All you're going to do is cause them to tear down more statues and erase more history.

People on the left are way too low IQ, and way too desperate for free stuff to give a shit. This has always been about destroying white people.

2
NotoriousCIC 2 points ago

The parties switched!!!

lol

2
Philhelm 2 points ago

But the parties switched, so that makes FDR a conservative. Or something.

2
Bouldabassed 2 points ago

Was FDR the worst president ever, or does that title go to LBJ? Really a tough choice.

1
_TheConsumer_ 1 point ago

LBJ wasn’t a threat to the foundation of our country. FDR rocked our country to the core. He ushered in socialism, government entitlement programs, while simultaneously threatening the Supreme Court to rule in his favor or face “overhaul” which would have expanded the Court with six more of his appointees.

He was Obama for the 1930s.

1
HillaryAteMyBaby 1 point ago

FDR did defeat the Nazis though.. which in turn solidified America as a super power. Right?

1
MichaelDenny 1 point ago

Yeeeeesssss but then he rolled over for the commies and squeezed Great Britain out of Eastern Europe. This subjected Hungary, Poland, and others for 60 years of communism, rape, and bullshit. Also the US secretly financially supported the Nazi regime the entire war, even clandestinely bringing over Nazi scientists after the war. The US and Britain were early supporters of Hitler, and let millions of Jews be killed and displaced before they intervened. It was, all in all, a real fuckaroo. No winners.

2
whateverdipshit 2 points ago

STOP PLAYING THE CANCEL CULTURE GAME.
These are the only Japanese concentration camps.

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/pow/1.jpg

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.a5rdTftetvkcCt9lBT4pKgHaEK?pid=Api&rs=1

2
LeftistsAreInsane 2 points ago

Don't forget one of his predecessors, Woodrow Wilson, who resegregated portions of the federal government that were previously desegregated by Republicans; segregated departments that previously had not been; screened Birth of a Nation at the White House; and tried to charge people under the unconstitutional Sedition Act (which he helped pass) for criticizing World War I. What a colorful history the democrats have!

I shit you not, a paid viral marketer (probably from a democrat PAC) was posting bullshit in the comments section of OAN recently and claimed that the mythical "party switch" happened in the 1910s! Holy hell, his employer couldn't even get his script consistent! Usually the left claims the "party switch" happened no earlier than 1964, but this guy was going all the way back to 1910!

2
Djt2029 2 points ago

FDR was a bigot who lied to the public about his health, had terrible fiscal policy which extended the great depression, and generally a POS.

2
Filetsmignon 2 points ago

No. Sorry, I'm not supprting their bullshit cancel culture tactics. He shouldn't have put Americans in internment camps. He shouldn't have put a klansman on the court. But I'm not going to play the same game as the lefties. I'll let history be history and leave him on the dime.

2
Crimson_Identity 2 points ago

Bring back the mercury dime!!!!

2
Hillandbill 2 points ago

And Lincoln who freed the slaves was a republican. Lincoln was shot by an actor. An actor who was a Democrat.

2
MAGA_From_Heaven 2 points ago

Lincoln was a Democrat until he ran for President. Civil War wasn't about Slavery. Lincoln was a racist, which I can prove using his words, who worked on deporting all freed slaves to Liberia until his dying day. Wilkes-Booth kepts that from happening. Revisionist history was written by Liberals.

2
adawk91 2 points ago

change my mind: the civil war was primary fought between the power elites of both north and south, over who's economic model (and who's cronies) would be used to develop the wilderness areas that are now our western states

Slavery, states rights, protect your way of life, etc were a way of pitching the war to the masses by each respective side, by framing it as "moral".

1
MAGA_From_Heaven 1 point ago

I mostly agree. Slave ships arrived in The North, so there was no moral high-ground. Bankers tried to kill Andrew Jackson and probably killed Lincoln by hiring Wilkes-Booth. I don't like the negative spin being put on States' Rights, so I would ask if you support BREXIT as a test.

1
TaggartCiscontinenta 1 point ago

Rosenfeld and Johnson are neck-and-neck in terms of most societally destructive presidents

EDIT: corrected an autocorrect. /s

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago

Worst President Ever. SJW issues aside

1
slaphappy2 1 point ago

Well if Roosevelt was pictured in blackface next to a Klansman - he'd be definitely cancelled.

Oh wait, what's this ?...

1
UsurpTheNarrative 1 point ago

Why don't we go out and start destroying everything in society that matters to Democrats?

No seriously, let's pick a rally point, some of us will travel from afar, lets all meet up and go on a March. A real one.

1
jaaardstyck 1 point ago

Replace with Tedy!

1
dookiebot 1 point ago

But muh party switch!

11
Bolo 11 points ago

Yup, look at the 1856 republican platform. Discusses upholding the constitution. The pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The right to bear arms, and freedom of speech, etc. These are all policies that the GOP still stands by to this day.

Party switch my ass.

1
wharfthrowaway 1 point ago

Well, today’s non-MAGA Republicans are for pretending to support these things and then letting Dems erode the country—as long as they get that sweet war money.

6
NYRepublican72 6 points ago

Only "party switch" was to the Democrats' to handouts. Republicans have been consistent.

4
Rokaroo 4 points ago

Lmao somehow when discussing the party switch FDR still retains his Democrat status; it’s actually an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to behold

1
Tophat9000 1 point ago

And he was a Democrat hero before the "magic party switch" that Dems claim happen

How can the country have and honest debate abouts race when the one that scream the most for it start with a bald face lie

If slavery is the country origin sin.. they the Democrat party is the father of that sin

And the Republican party was founded to end that sin

Until the Democrat party admits they past, apologies for that past and admit ther has slanders the Republican party with trying to dump the "bill" for the Democrats sins on the Republican and everone else ...

THERE NOT A DAM THING TO TALK ABOUT!...

DEMOCRAT PARTY ADMITS YOUR HISTORY AND STOP THE BIG LIE!!!

1
DrVSGGEOTUSPhD 1 point ago

The thing with the Japanese was reasonable tho

1
drivebypooping 1 point ago

The original welfare pimp.

1
BoltBoltBoltBolt90 1 point ago

They teach in school that he's really good just because he was president for a large majority of WW2, ignoring the japanese-american concentration camps and many other disgusting acts.

1
To2025andbeyond 1 point ago

The question answers itself.

1
Womp_womp 1 point ago

Anyone who put a klansman on the supreme court should be cancelled.

1
quigonkenny 1 point ago

I think you answered yourself.

1
edxzxz 1 point ago

FDR, meet Woodrow Wilson - a favorite of the leftist Universities, such as Princeton which has a school named after him, and Monmouth whose main building is named after him - Woodrow Wilson reversed policies which had nearly erased the hardships of black Americans and institutionalized racism by re-segregating the armed forces, postal service and federal employment!

-2
Terrysilver35 -2 points ago

Get this liberal cancel shit out of here

2
ladypede_killer 2 points ago

you are being downvoted but you are right.

1
Filo76 1 point ago

It's more illustrating the hypocrisy of the left (which knows no limit) than anything else. I don't agree with much of what FDR did domestically, but he was still a huge part of early 20th century history. History is oftentimes ugly, but that doesn't make it any less factual.

1
BoltBoltBoltBolt90 1 point ago

This isn't "liberal cancel shit", this is showing facts behind FDR's awful presidency.