That would be hilarious

@@rosal3755 There's literally a coin with his face on it in SBR, but it's just cover art so maybe... just maybe...

​@@chewiedog1Why yes, it would

​@@chewiedog1 You could say... it'd be... Funny

​@@Kado2369badum tssss

And after the civil war, Republican dominated politics

bigly point if true, lots of people are saying it

northern democrats existed, and while they were probably more likely to desert or live in counties and regions that ignored the draft, plenty of northern democrats would have fought in union forces, reluctantly or not. the first three volunteer generals appointed by lincoln were democrats. northern democrats were pretty fractured by the civil war, and plenty opposed slavery, secession, etc. look up “war democrats”

@@senecavermeulen8110 that’s definitely true but I’m just talking likelihood.

Funny Valentine seeming right wing and being shockingly equal also makes sense for a 19th century Republican

Different universe?

Weird analogy but ok

I'm trying my best not to be racist

He's not rich from the start and his political status is not higher.

Smokey never got to run for President. Shame, too, I woulda voted for him.

Wait, it's funny? Haha get it? Like Funny Valentine from my favourite manga series JoJo's bizzare adventure: part 7 steel ball run.

I forgot he could do that lmao

@@bigshot4015 , same here.

His footsteps actually make a sound at the end of the lovetrain arc for some reason

must be good for quenching the thirst at 3am

As an American i can further confirm this

I though the democrats wanted America to be a nation for everyone?

As a Puertorican aka a Diet American I can also confirm this.

As an American of Puerto Rican decent, I also confirm this.

I’d direct it all to China.

Indeed.

Dojyaaan. We missed something, he has already achieved Love Train.

donald duck done dirt cheap

@@zacharyuy-tioco2539 both got blasted in the right ear and have love train as the theme song (Ojays created "trump train" in 2019) he also wanted to buy Greenland, the place where stand arrows originated from as a meteor

More seriously, with regard to Mike O, a good analogy could be William Slade, Lincoln's usher and valet, and a free-born black man working in the President's staff in the 1860s. I don't believe Mike ever wields a knife or gun on-panel, meaning from the perspective of normal people he isn't even an armed guard but simply a manservant.

Higgledy-piggledy Benjamin Harrison 23rd President was and as such _Served between Clevelands,_ and save for this trivial Idiosyncrasy didn't do much

Perhaps, but I’m unsure

Wow, no freakin way that's true

Wow how funny and original

What a dirty deed

Something is going to be done here

Queime os latifundiários

Its important to remember that republicans and democrats in that time were different until roosevelt came in so thats incorrect

@@vincentriegelblaesing1685 if I remember correctly, wasn’t Nixon the first modern Republican, what with the southern strategy? Up until that point it’s hard to place any candidate in a modern party because views were a bit shuffled

No man he wouldn’t be center right he wants more power so he is actually authoritarian more than libertarian showing your ignorance truly

@@Yesmanpersondude people from the center are authoritarian lol

"Less extreme right wing positions than the democrats" I had a stroke reading this comment I hope you can afford my hospital bill

Jonathan's a noble, of course he's a tory

Jonathan was probably a Tory bcs of the whole landowning noble thing but could've been a Liberal due to how he was as a person. Dio was probably a Tory because he was a huge asshole who wanted money and power. He'd have invented the modern Conservatives had he been a politician.

There's a chance that he was part of the Liberals as some nobles supported that party and I would think that due to his character he would at least be pro-reform.

Of course they’re Tories, they’re nobility. Also Part 3 DIO is a Libertarian as proposed by Shayne from Smosh

He could be like Bernie Sanders where he's basically a third party/independent but running as one of the main two parties because third party candidates never become president

​@@redjirachi1 never say never! It has indeed happened before!

​@@redjirachi1 You could say the same about Trump considering he tried to become president as a democrat too back then

​@@pierofasulli1076 True. Bernie and Trump are both largely populist candidates.

I mean he just wants his country to be the best it can be to help it’s people he is what politicians should be

He may be cruel but damn he’s effective

A good reason why we should reelect Trump!

​@@bathilra5364 he wanted to fuck a teenager and make the whole world a hellhole except for the US

@@AngraMainiiu he just said in the ending of the video funny isnt right winged

_well… well… well…_

probably one of the other stand users funny valentine had yet to send out to kill johnny and gyro like how dio probably had many other stand users he yet to have send out or the vice president is a alternate universe smokey

My theory is that the VP was Benjamin Harrison, and Valentine was just written out of the history books after his death.

@@brokenursa9986 the president with 90% approval rating was just erased from history damn

​@@edixonvc5101 This is... Requiem.

@@edixonvc5101 I mean given what stands can do maybe Benjamin Harrison's got a Stand and his Stand DOES basically redact people from history (and living memory). Or Johnny was so angry that he managed to memoryhole Valentine's existence

Yeah the big switch is big lie so it helping spread a lie

+ third party, cause why not.

@@admiralmonocle3874 Funny Valentine's political affiliations: Yes/Other (America)

In 1800s Manifest Destiny was primarily a Democrat Party doctrine.

@@josukehigashikata9551 the democrats literally split into the rep and demonstrates parties based upon how they wanted to enact manifest destinies. Know-nothings, free soilers, and even whigs (who are democrats) would formed the rep party. the rep party in early 1800s technically didn't exist yet. but its very free soiler in thought process, specially with the context of the napkin speech

if you are Funny, people will laugh at you if you are Funny the president of the United States of America, people will still laugh at you but silently.

It would probably help you in the polls

@@MASKarade25 He was the first Marxist to EVER come to power, too bad Johnny stopped him before he could overthrow global capitalism, along with all of it's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap

⁠@@MASKarade25kid named Me Bro: I disagree

It was told to me in a dream 🗿 🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿

If you look at it one way, the parties never changed. The Republicans have always been the party of "Everyone should have the same chance to pull up their boot straps and earn their own living." In the 1800s, that meant giving Blacks the chance to be equal. In the modern world, that means not giving special treatment to minorities. The difference is that meant elevating some to not elevating others, as the nation became more equal. The Democrats have always been the party of White Savior-ism. In the 1800s, that meant it was their "right" to control the Minority populations on plantations to make a lot of money, supposedly for their own good. In the modern world, it means providing monetary hand-outs and group identities to control Minority populations in city slums to make a lot of money, supposedly for their own good. The difference is that they traded Fear and Chains for Greed and Peer Pressure. Republicans: "Get out and work for it, pansy." Democrats: "We're from the Government and we're here to help."

Thank god I’m not the only one that cringed at the videos breakdown of late Victorian US politics

@@ARKHAM367 by and large yes but change was already happening. Let’s start from the beginning. The original two major American parties were the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans who we’ll just call DemPubs. Federalists were generally based on the eastern seaboard and in large cities which favored a more centralized government such as the ideals men like Alexander Hamilton promoted. The DemPubs supported more decentralized state powers and were lead by Jefferson. Ultimately after Jefferson defeated John Adams (the only official federalist president) in 1800, the DemPubs dominated politics for the next 3 decades and saw the federalists dissolve complete In 1832 we saw another major realignment. Because former federalists essentially joined the DemPubs along with it being a national party, many felt the party lost its Jeffersonian identity, the most prominent being Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a self made man and frontiersman who believed in the vision of Jeffersonian democracy. He used his status as a war hero to launch a political career and eventually ran for president as one of four DemPubs. Despite winning both a plurality of the popular and electoral college vote, Jackson wouldn’t enter the White House and instead John Quincy Adams, son of former federalist John Adams, won via a dealing in congress. This lead to jackson leaving the DemPubs and establishing the Democratic Party, the same party that stands today. Jackson essentially evolved the Jeffersonian ideal, maintaining the belief of limited federal power but promoting democracy of the common man, something Jefferson initially promoted but slowly phased out. He supported further enfranchisement of whites and expansion into western territories along with a reduction of tariffs and stopping national infrastructure projects. Despite his opposition to federal power, critics compared Jackson to a king due to his liberal usage of the veto and the Whig party was born from anti jackson dissenters. The Whigs were essentially spiritual successors to Federalists supporting a stronger federal government and higher tariffs to protect industries. However the Whigs would never really consolidate their base and kept nominating old dudes who died in office leading to mediocre VPs to succeed them and as such the Whigs faded into obscurity. Many Whigs either rejoined the democrats or formed a new party. By 1840, slavery was the new hot topic. This lead to the formation of the Republican Party. Although discussions were about slavery there was greater economic philosophies at hand. Republicans like the federalists and Whigs were concentrated in cities and as such supported mercantilism plans of high tariffs. Lincoln himself had been a former Whig and apprentice of Henry Clay the former party leader. It’s also worth mentioning most people who were anti slavery weren’t necessarily pro equal rights and in fact often proposed colonization to remove blacks from the country. After the civil war, republicans dominated politics and maintained high tariffs for the benefit of big business. Likewise after reconstruction ended they’d drop any pretexts of supporting African Americans. Democrats for the most part didn’t really change still supporting free trade. During the gilded age, Grover Cleveland would be the only democrat elected and enacted low tariff but pro business policies. In terms of expansionism, both parties were split but the democrats were generally more isolationist than republicans with Cleveland rejecting annexation of Hawaii but would be completed by his successor Benjamin Harrison. Then we get to the progressive era and again both parties had progressive factions in response to the rise of corporate power. Theodore Roosevelt who was a Republican became the first progressive president and began cracking down on monopolies. His successor Taft would continue the policy even more effectively but political squabbles lead to Roosevelt splitting. During this period the democrats were transmogrifying thanks to the de facto leader former Nebraska congressman William Jennings Bryan who steered the party away from the laisses-faire leadership of Cleveland and again to support progressivism. Keep in mind progressive here means expansion of government power into every aspect of life, including the rise of eugenics as a means of population control and being anti-immigrant and pro assimilation. Similarly progressives were split on imperialism. This leads to Wilson who after a successful term as governor ran for president and was endorsed by Bryan eventually defeating Taft and Roosevelt in 1912 and he began taking the Democratic Party and america into a much more progressive direction. Fdr would follow suit 20 years later So by and large, the democrats didn’t really change that much. This video is wrong saying there was a party switch

@@ARKHAM367 uh no southern democrats weren’t. First of all just forget about labels like liberal or conservative or progressive or whatever because they don’t mean anything. While southern states initially were pro small government after reconstruction and the progressive era they became pro large government. Mississippi was the second state after Wisconsin to enact an income tax. Kentucky became the first state to let women vote. Southern politicians focused on controlling monopolies. Woodrow Wilson himself had roots in the deep south, tho had primarily lived in the north for his college career. The south overwhelmingly supported FDR voting for him by 99 percent in some instances. Even LBJ who many cite as the mark of the political flip, was from Texas but want to treat him as the exception. Truman’s initiative of racial integration did begin a schism between north and south but for the most part they agreed on every other issue. So no I wouldn’t say the southern democrats of that period would be republicans by todays standard. The south moved republican because racial tensions died down by the 1980s and the democratic based moved to northern upper class interests. Plus after WWII both parties became general pro interventionist and pro free trade. Simply put Dixiecrats stayed Dixiecrats until they died and were replaced by new generations of southern republicans. But schools gas light everyone into believing there was a big switch. Just look up guys like James Vardaman or Theodore Bilbo and you’ll see these guys were lock step with the progressive movement yet now a days they’re labeled as conservatives and right wing. Bilbo in particular voted 100 percent for the new deal in the senate yet is called a right winger on wikipedia

@@ARKHAM367 again man, social conservative means nothing. What were they conserving? It completely changes over time. Wallace was a democrat. He briefly established a third party but rejoined the democrats. He remained a democrat through his fourth term and died a democrat. He also probably would’ve won the democratic nomination over McGovern in 1972 if he wasn’t shot. Nixon didn’t have a southern strategy. It was a sunbelt strategy appealing to suburbanite across California, Arizona and the south. If you look at a state level election map, Nixon did best in suburban counties. Wallace did best in rural counties and Humphrey did best in black and urban counties. In most states Nixon came in third before Wallace or Humphrey. Even without Wallace it’s unlikely Nixon wins the south. Nixon did poorly with the rural areas which were the democratic base. It’s also important to note, wallace didn’t run a regional campaign. In fact he didn’t even run a segregationist campaign. His messaging was primarily on the Vietnam war and crime. He outright said in several interviews he wouldn’t enforce segregation anywhere. Wallace was an old school progressive democrat which by 1960 was erroneously labeled as conservative. As government he expanded welfare, tried to overturn right to work and was an isolationist. He really wasn’t that much different than Hubert Humphrey besides racial politics. He was never the “southern” candidate and positioned himself as a person with national appeal. He also certainly wasn’t to Nixon’s right and Nixon himself was basically a centrist. I find it funny how despite being Eisenhower’s VP, libs love Ike despite Nixon being similar to him. As for the Atwater quote, watch the entire interview. He states several times reagan didn’t need a southern strategy. But people take that one line out of context and ignore what he was actually saying. A person asked him what his thoughts are on claims of racial dog whistles and his point is that racism has become so unacceptable that things have gotten so abstract that economic policies are called racist. He outright said “I’m coming at this from a psychologist perspective, not a campaigner.” The point being as he put it we are doing away with racial politics if you go from saying the n word openly to talking about economics. “But Reagan did not have to do a. Southern strategy for two reasons. Number one, race was not a dominant issue, and number two the mainstream issues in this campaign had been quote southern issues since way back in the sixties. So reagan goes out and campaigns on the issues of economics and of national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any king of racism, any kind of reference.” In fact Atwater stated that a campaign using dog whistles failed in the south several times versus one devoid of race. People were over race by 1980. No one cared. As for abortion, the majority of people in both parties generally took anti abortion approaches. Even Hillary Clinton promoted “safe legal but rare” versus now where you should shout your abortion. Considering Trump is called far right despite taking the most generic and vague anti abortion stance is a testament to the Overton window being so far left. But again look at the broader history. Since 1912 the democrats were the left wing party not the republicans. Wilson was undoubtedly to the left of Harding and Coolidge. Fdr was to their left as well. There was zero difference between the Dixiecrat of 1960 and the generic democrat of 1912 or even 1930. Remember fdr generally avoided racial issues. Even wilson called out lynchings and demanding a stop. The only difference between wallace and Humphrey was their stance on segregation but 90 percent of other issues they were lock step, except maybe interventionism. Do there was no southern strategy. This also isn’t even getting into the fact prior to the civil war, the south was actually far LESS racist than the north

As another Texan I'd gladly vote for any Republican

As a Texan, I'd like someone capable to run next time, not the last two times

@@Orion_44 wym

@@krizthecookingbeaner2567 you know exactly what I mean

@@krizthecookingbeaner2567ah the sheep being sheep. Story as old as time

Yea, I'm like, since when reform vs change was the dichotomy. Just imagine, does a right winger become a leftist when leftist reforms become the norm for society. I know it's an oversimplification, but, simplifications are suppose to be somewhat accurate and make sense lol.

@@noahedlen8053yeah the oversimplification makes the statement incorrect, in the sense that the parties goals really aren’t reform vs tradition, rather the goals of the parties align in todays world in those values. It’s basically a causation correlation falacy

Democrat vs. Republican is very vague terminology in the first place. To my knowledge, it doesn't really have an inherent meaning. As such, the simplification works fine. Generally speaking, modern day Democrats lean more towards change (good or bad) and modern day Republicans lean more towards keeping the status quo (good or bad). In the 1800's, that sentiment was the same, it's just that the party names switched.

Yeah, the party names are the real confusers. Democrats? The entire government is democratic you idiot. Republicans? The country is a republic! Like why not just liberals and conservatives? No need to pull other political terms into the mix.

Americans when the ideologies of century-old political parties have evolved since their conception:

Funny is not in the 2020's though. He is in the 1890's

It's not even true though the republicans were just the anti slavery party, The left today just like to say the party's switch, because they don't want to seem responsible for slavery

I didnt know that it did. Thought i would have learned that in school and not from a video about a Japanese comic about a completely made up president

​@@ThemTwoGamerGuyssource: you made it up

@@Marika_ER source being reality... Republicans were created as the anti-slavery party with Abe Lincoln.

He's too big to fit in a video

I second this 😂

So the original "not my president"?

@@maddiestayshydrated5335 Pretty much lol

Buddy wrote an essay gonna get dyslexia aint no way

There’s a lot more to it than that. Kennedy was socially progressive, which southern Democrats disagreed with, and likewise, as Nixon would find out, the Republicans were becoming more socially conservative at the same time. Kennedy, of course, got shot, and LBJ took his place, and when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that was the final straw for the southern Democrats. They left for the Republicans, and the remaining liberal elements of the Republicans joined the Dems. It wasn’t a complete party switch, though, until the next generation of voters, who backed Ronald Reagan, the first modern neoliberal conservative US president, for the Republicans.

But, like, no? Sounds like your friend has no idea. The reversal started way before JFK's presidency. Most Democrats liked JFK except the southern Democrats, who were popularly called the Dixiecrats. The conservative Dixiecrats opposed JFK's support of the rising civil rights movement and after JFK was assassinated, his successor LBJ passed the civil rights act, in effect ensuring the seperation of Dixiecrats from the mainline Democratic party. Several members of the southern Democrats shifted over to the Republican party while many moderate members of the Republican party shifted over to the Democratic party. Gradually the party messaging changed to the Democratic party becoming more progressive and the Republican changing their messaging to be more conservative to attract the disgruntle southern former Democrats. You can see this shift in the way that in the 1950s, about 70% Democrats were center left with the remaining being far-right(the Dixiecrats), and most Republicans being center-right. In the 1970s, most Democrats were center-left while most Republicans were right with some far-right. This ended with the Reagan presidency solidifying the Republican party as the conservative party. So, no the parties didn't switch during the JFK presidency, it was a gradual process that had been going on for about 4 decades at that point. The passing of the civil rights act acted as a peak in the switch. Btw, the point you said is very often said by conservatives who want to claim JFK as some sort of conservative leader who got betrayed by his own party, but like I said, JFK was mostly progressive who was hated by the conservative minority in his party.

If it's Jojo, questions can be as weird as "what color is Jodio's shit"

@@localshowershitter702 it’s a whitish grey I think under his overall thing

@@gagejoestv2714 source?

@@localshowershitter702 it's the same color as dragona's weenie

@@localshowershitter702 from what I think are official colorations of first chapter specifically the magazine covers

I know nothing about third parties in the mid-to-late 19th century.

@@normanclatcher the most infamous third party was the republican party, becoming so popular it became one of the two parties, leaving the other one to fade to obscurity.

@@evanhorn951 Whig Party, which would never again elect a President after Millard Fillmore (#13), and fell out of relevancy almost entirely by the time of Lincoln (#16), who was the first Republican to take that office. As for what I was trying to say, I _Know Nothing_ about third parties in the mid-19th century.

@@normanclatcher me neither

Derick I just know, okay?