Jump to content


The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts

The Republican Party didn't change all of a sudden when someone made a statement in the late '60s.  That takes time and beliefs and feelings within a party change slowly (usually).

 

Most people my age or older became Republicans in the 80s or earlier.  This was because it was the party of smaller government, control spending, lower taxes, Reagan defeated the USSR in the cold war with a strong military.  Those actions brought us out of a pretty bad economic time in the US and, even though some benefited more than others, America greatly benefited from that time all the way through the Clinton Whitehouse.  

 

We didn't join the Republican party Because of some anti feelings towards black people or gay people or wanting to keep the poor...poor.  

 

But, that is what has changed over time and has boiled out of the lanced sore that Trump has created.  Were there factions within the Republican party building over time with those feelings?  Sure.  But, that's also why most of us on this board don't belong to the party anymore.

 

To say that I joined the Republican party in the late 80s because they I supported racism and antisemitism and anti gay crap is nothing more than pushing party politics from the other side.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Republican Party didn't change all of a sudden when someone made a statement in the late '60s.  That takes time and beliefs and feelings within a party change slowly (usually).

 

Most people my age or older became Republicans in the 80s or earlier.  This was because it was the party of smaller government, control spending, lower taxes, Reagan defeated the USSR in the cold war with a strong military.  Those actions brought us out of a pretty bad economic time in the US and, even though some benefited more than others, America greatly benefited from that time all the way through the Clinton Whitehouse.  

 

We didn't join the Republican party Because of some anti feelings towards black people or gay people or wanting to keep the poor...poor.  

 

But, that is what has changed over time and has boiled out of the lanced sore that Trump has created.  Were there factions within the Republican party building over time with those feelings?  Sure.  But, that's also why most of us on this board don't belong to the party anymore.

 

To say that I joined the Republican party in the late 80s because they I supported racism and antisemitism and anti gay crap is nothing more than pushing party politics from the other side.

 

The notion that the 80's and Reagan's leadership was a time of tax cuts and small government is dubious at best. Reagan raised taxes plenty of times after the 81 tax cut (as did Bush), he expanded the size of government and spending, nearly tripling the federal budget deficit. 

 

Meanwhile he was giving a wink and nod with lines in speeches about "Welfare Queens" and "Chicago women" as he undid and flat out ignored Affirmative Action policies. Reagan argued against the Fair Housing Act, saying, "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so." He claimed Jefferson Davis was a hero of his, opposed making MLK Day a holiday, and said the Voting Rights Act was humiliating to the South. 

 

Some folks may not have joined the GOP out of racist fervor, but plenty didn't mind it, which I'm not sure is any better. 

  • Plus1 7
Link to comment
On 7/17/2018 at 8:17 AM, Ulty said:

 

I'm no mathemagician, but I believe 1964 was more than 10 years ago.

 

The republicans being the party of Abraham Lincoln was a loooooooong time ago. After the Civil Rights Act, the GOP became the party of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, and Richard Nixon, culminating in the de-evolution that we are witnessing now.

Need to up the clock a bit more.  Eisenhower's work on Civil Rights got the ball rolling.  The 1964 bill got passed on the strength of Republican votes  and was opposed by southern democrats.  What eventually changed is ending school segregation across the south led to an upheaval in political alliances.  You had racist Gov George Wallace running for president as a Dem in 64, 72, 78 and as an indep in 68- helping Nixon to win.   You also had Ark Gov Orval Faubus, who was Bill Clinton's mentor per Bill Clinton, who was the racist governor during the 1960s when the Civil Rights act was enacted.   So, I think you start seeing a real change starting to take hold in the 70s.  Lee Atewater (sp) took advantage of all of the southern discontent and funneled it into the 1988 GHWB presidential campaign.  

 

With all of that said, the Repub party is no longer the party of Reagan or Lincoln and by their endorsement of all things Trump plus running some pretty loony tune candidates who have said some pretty racist things, one can claim that the party has become the hiding place for racists.  I don't think this is the enlarged tent that previous Repubs envisioned.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

And here's the Republican rubber stamp of treason.

 

No matter what reason you joined that party, you should leave. Now. Being an Independent is better than swelling the ranks of an organization that does this.

 

 

Quote

The House ruled that the measure, offered by House Foreign Affairs ranking member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), was out of order.

The measure would have had the effect of endorsing Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) statement criticizing Trump’s remarks, in which Trump cast doubt on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election by saying he believed Putin’s denial. ..........

Because Engel’s time on the floor was yielded solely for the purpose of debate, he needed unanimous consent for his measure to be considered.

So how does one get over this 'technicality'.  Here he is trying to endorse what Speaker Ryan said but some rule gets in the way.  I wonder if there is another way to get around the rule? I'm guessing the Speaker, if he desired, could bring it up somehow.  .... unless the Speaker's words were meant to have the bite of a toothless kitten.

Link to comment


3 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said:
 

 

giphy.gif

 

Both sides, right?

 

 

 

It's Trump who's most likely to stage a coup, and I think it's not out of the realm of possibility that he and his supporters will try to start a war if he loses the election in 2020 or if he's impeached.

 

Scheuer should be arrested.

Link to comment

I did some more looking into that guy tonight to see if anything had come of it.

 

I did stumble upon this. Reading this, I initially thought the dude was going through some kind of mental break, because this is absolutely batsh#t insane stuff.

 

 

But then, lo and behold, cribbed straight from his Wikipedia:

 

Quote

In December 2013 and January 2014, Scheuer was criticized for seeming to advise American citizens to seriously consider assassinating US President Barack Obama.

 

Link

 

Scheuer endorsed the assassinations of both Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron in his December 23 column, as The Daily Beast's David Frum noted. Concluding a piece criticizing their handling of "the Islamists' war on America," Scheuer wrote (emphasis added): 

 

Quote

As they head further down the road of losing wars and wrecking Anglo-American liberties, Messrs Obama and Cameron and their supporters in all parties would do well to read the words of the great 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, a man who was revered on both sides of the Atlantic, who greatly influenced America's founders, and who was executed by the British Crown for what it described as sedition. "There must therefore be a right," Sidney wrote,

 

"of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown. ... If he [a political leader] be justly accounted an enemy of all, who injures all; he above all must be the publick enemy of a nation, who by usurping power over them, does the greatest and most publick injury that a people can suffer. For which reason, by an established law among the most virtuous nations, every man might kill a tyrant; and no names are recorded in history with more honor, than of those who did it."

 

 

Oh, and he endorsed Trump. This is just the kind of loony toon I would expect to come out strongly for Trump.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...