Can anyone please help me understand the Republican Party?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Planned Parenthood are seen by Republicans as the principal supplier of abortions. They are also the principal supplier of healthcare to low income women.

Planned Parenthood has been under concerted attack by the Republicans for many years. At least since Ronald Reagans time. These faked videos are just the latest fake outrage by the right wingers.

:mad:

InTheTrees

jank wrote: »

This fear works both ways. Ever hear on the 'War on Women' spouted by Democrats for example.

Its funny you bring that up the day after the Republicans really embarrassed themselves in the congressional hearings in their attempt to defubd womens healthcare via Planned Parenthood.

:cool:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry the allegations are clear. Prominent republicans making them. Even the claim you make that the criticism is over the selling of tissue from aborted fetuses has been proven false by numerous investigations. Still the republicans go on about it and want to defund a service that provides sexual healthcare to millions of women.

Carly Fiorina at the republican debate.
“Watch a fully-formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we do not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07f9XwOnr-8

Ted Cruz:
SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Sean, you're exactly right. This video and the one from last week are both gruesome. They show senior officials at Planned Parenthood callously, heartlessly bargaining and bartering to sell the body parts of unborn children.
They're sipping wine. They're laughing about it. This one official you just showed said she wants to sell so many body parts of unborn children, she buy her own Lamborghini!
Video:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/07/22/ted-cruz-need-to-prosecute-planned-parenthood/

Jeb Bush
"It just troubles me that you would sell body parts. It just makes no sense to me," he said Wednesday during a stop at the Carolina Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/politics/jeb-bush-planned-parenthood-pope/

Dr. Ben Carson from his facebook page:
What we learned today is the body part harvesting at Planned Parenthood is simply barbaric. It must stop and Congress must stand up.

Chris Christie:
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton “believes in the systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts … in a way that maximizes their value for sale for profit.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/chris-christie-hillary-clinton-believes-systematic-murder-children-womb

Mike Huckabee
How can we claim to be superior to nations who commit genocide when we commit infanticide? Destroying innocent life and harvesting human organs is beyond barbaric -- it is unimaginably immoral, grotesque, and evil.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/23/battle-goes-beyond-planned-parenthood-must-end-abortion-in-america0.html

Permabear wrote: »

As it happens, a number of Republican senators (including Deb Fischer and Lisa Murkowski) lent support on social media to the principle of equal pay for equal work. They voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2014 only after Democrats refused to consider their proposed amendments to the bill.

Yeah like I said they voted against equal pay for women.

A Primal Nut

A couple of points from someone who kind of supports understands the appeal but I wouldn't be a Republican supporter in general.

1) Most of them aren't necessarily against a lot of things like minimum wage, government sponsorerd health care, etc but they want it to be judged at the state level, as they think a one-size fits all approach doesn't work.

2) Many of them are conservative Christians and in that case it makes sense to vote for the party that most represenents that mindset. Being an atheist myself I don't like this, but it's not a problem solely with Conservative Christians. Muslim countries in Turkey, Egypt, etc who have had democratic elections always vote for Conservative Islamic parties, all of which are much more extreme than the US Republican party, but for whatever reason liberals will always defend conservative Muslims but not conservative Christians. Catholic voters throughout Latin America and the Philippines consistently vote for Conservative Catholic parties. Same with Hindus in India. I find it difficult to understand religion in general so it's difficult for me to understand this also but the idea that conservative republicans are unique in the world is not true. White protestant Christians are as much entitled to vote by their religious beliefs as Catholics, Hindus and Muslims. If you think gay marriage is a reasonable reflection of how secular a country is most democratic governments around the world are still against it.

3) They do tend to say a lot of stupid things which of course the media love to focus on, but voters find that a refreshing alternative to the overly polished Democrats. Admittedly it's difficult to find a decent media source that will ever say something positive about the Republicans - as you mentioned Fox News is way too sensationalist. The WSJ is probably better.

4) They take pride in providing for and protecting their family themselves. It's the Esteem or Self-Actualisation part of Masow's hierarchy of needs and it's what has driven humans throughout history; indeed it's one of the reason innovation flourishes there but of course it's a mentality European liberals will never understand.

5) Ultimately they think the Republican party is better for the economy. The fact is that for many voters, especially small business owners, will benefit from a Republican president.

InTheTrees

A Primal Nut wrote: »

2) Many of them are conservative Christians and in that case it makes sense to vote for the party that most represenents that mindset. Being an atheist myself I don't like this, but it's not a problem solely with Conservative Christians. Muslim countries in Turkey, Egypt, etc who have had democratic elections always vote for Conservative Islamic parties, all of which are much more extreme than the US Republican party, but for whatever reason liberals will always defend conservative Muslims but not conservative Christians. Catholic voters throughout Latin America and the Philippines consistently vote for Conservative Catholic parties. Same with Hindus in India. I find it difficult to understand religion in general so it's difficult for me to understand this also but the idea that conservative republicans are unique in the world is not true. White protestant Christians are as much entitled to vote by their religious beliefs as Catholics, Hindus and Muslims. If you think gay marriage is a reasonable reflection of how secular a country is most democratic governments around the world are still against it.

Yes. Its true enough that right wing religious extremists aren't confined to the Republican Party in the USA but can be found in other countries too.

:eek:

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ireland is not the US.

Planned Parenthood provides healthcare to men and women in the USA.

Republicans are attempting to defund Planned Parenthood.

A Primal Nut

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes. Its true enough that right wing religious extremists aren't confined to the Republican Party in the USA but can be found in other countries too.

:eek:

What I mean is that this has been the majority human instinct as long as politics has existed and in that sense, secular governments are an exception rather than the rule unfortunately, as much with democracies as non-democracies. There is nothing unusual or extreme about Republican voters when looked at in a global or historical context. But for whatever reason they are generally singled out as "evil" or "bad".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

A Primal Nut wrote: »

What I mean is that this has been the majority human instinct as long as politics has existed and in that sense, secular governments are an exception rather than the rule unfortunately, as much with democracies as non-democracies. There is nothing unusual or extreme about Republican voters when looked at in a global or historical context. But for whatever reason they are generally singled out as "evil" or "bad".

The United States has since its founding tried to set itself apart by treating the separation of church and state very seriously. The constitution emphasizes the point.

Of course society tends to be biased towards Christianity but constitutionally there should be no preference given.

Which is why ben carsons comments that a muslim shouldnt be president caused gasps. True it was more of a gaff but he should have known better.

jank

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

100% correct. It is not even the case that people can disagree with certain view points, which is fair enough. Its the complete dumbing down of their ideas and view points to basic ad hominem, that they hate women/minorities/gays and are basically dump stupid red-neck hicks.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is relevant, given that any Republican - even if they are in the 1/3 of those that are pro-life for instance - have a rather restricted choice of pro-life presidential candidates to pick from.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This post exemplifies the issue with republicans.
When presented with quotes and videos of top republicans accusing Planned Parenthood of "harvesting" and selling babies body parts the point is ignored.
When two sides even agree that republicans voted against equal pay for women some throw away quote is made "Daily Kos soundbite" like the person doesn't understand or is just parroting a blog.

Republicans and a lot of people lack media and digital literacy. A photo of a plaque on a university is considered a rebuttal to a point (hint no its not).

Badly edited videos are enough to fool the republican leadership into wanting to defund planned parenthood, even the guy who made the videos says they weren't "harvesting organs". But that's enough for the gop leadership to say it without criticism from their own side. They are literally ignoring reality to promote their own agenda. Kind of sad really. Digital and media literacy should be taught in school.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

It is relevant, given that any Republican - even if they are in the 1/3 of those that are pro-life for instance - have a rather restricted choice of pro-life presidential candidates to pick from.

One could also make the opposite argument that a democratic candidate would not be pro-life even though many democrats would be.

spideog7

I think the points made in this thread highlight the real problem, the main sticking points in the news aren't necessarily representative of the party as a whole. Which begs the question of why they become such important points of debate?

I can't understand why the Republican party insist on harping on ultra conservative social issues as I believe it only serves to alienate the moderates who might otherwise agree with their actual policies that matter to everyday people. The best thing that could happen to the republicans is a real life tea party soaking up all the headline grabbing crazies.
I completely understand that someone like the OP would only see these issues because that is all that plays out in the media, I also completely understand how someone looking at that can come to the conclusion that Republicans are nuts because surely any reasonable voter would immediately pass over anyone who spent that much time arguing about stuff that isn't relevant to them.

My personal opinion is that the system of voting is partially to blame. I keep telling people here that it's not really two party system as anyone who gets sufficient votes can get elected, but they don't seem to believe me and vote for the guy who 'has a better chance' instead of the guy they want. Personally I have no party affiliation EDIT TO CLARIFY: and don't really care about social issues.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Many of the groups who republicans "oppress" according to their critics also have a victim complex.

No, the don't have a victim complex. They are victims. There's a huge difference. It's not just ethnic minorities I'm referring to, the most common victim of the GOP are the blue collar working poor.

ECO_Mental

Says it all really, The Reps are only getting the white religous folks..and are doing nothing to win the rest back and the leadership have to appease them with saying all this crazy stuff. The thing is that the GOP voters will come out to vote in numbers and the blacks/ hispanics dont or cant becasue of voter reg issues and the GOP is blocking the hipanics from getting citizenship becasue if they do the GOP are history

K-9

Cut out the tit for tat bickering 20cent and permabear.

On a general note, I'm not sure if there's much point to this thread if it just becomes one throwing lazy generalisations at each other.

20Cent

Here is an example of the republican leaders being disingenuous
.
House Oversight Committee chair Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) questioning Cecile Richards showed the graph below claiming it came from data published by planned parenthood to show an increase in abortions performed by them.



As one can see it has no y axis and the figures are actually wrong.

It turns out that the chart was made by Americans United for Life an anti-abortion group and this republican was using it without checking its authenticity.

Would be an embarrassing moment for a serious person but he just says he'll check it out and carries on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGlLLzw5_KM

Overheal

Was it John Oliver or Larry Wilmore who pointed this out the other night (we caught it a few days ago over in the abortion thread though)

During that 5 hours they interviewed the CEO, the amount of times they interrupted her while asking her to answer questions was mind boggling. It was all for show.

Manic Moran

20Cent wrote: »

.
When two sides even agree that republicans voted against equal pay for women some throw away quote is made "Daily Kos soundbite" like the person doesn't understand or is just parroting a blog.

The background does have some relevance, however. For example, I am glad that the proposed bill to mandate that private gun sales be subjected to background checks failed back in 2013. Not because I don't think that they should be subject to checks, as I certainly do, but because of the God-awful way that it was to be implemented under that legislation.

Soundbite me in the above manner, and you'll say "He voted against the background check bill". This would be correct, had I a vote. At exactly the same time, though, you can truthfully say "He supports background checks on gun sales." Which is a better reflection of the reality of my position?

It is also interesting to note that there is a lot of cross-levelling of opinions on things. For example, there was some concern here in California back in 2008 as two important things were on the ballot. The presidential election, which was expected to bring out minorities in droves to support Obama, but also the gay marriage referendum, which was poorly timed, because minorities tended to be against it (Hispanics, for example, tend to be quite religious catholics). The result was as feared. Obama voters came out in huge numbers, and while at the polls, they also voted against gay marriage.

As a result, it can be seen that simple assessments that "Democrats are pro-gay" are not necessarily true. (That Kentucky clerk was a Democrat until last week) A lot of Libertarians, who tend to vote Republican in the Presidential election, don't give a damn what happens in people's private bedrooms, as befits the libertarian position. There's a reason that even in Democratic-heavy congresses, gun control legislation fails repeatedly. There are a lot of democrat gun owners and they expect their representatives to vote accordingly.

I am certainly disappointed with many of the Republicans in the field. I suspect that much of it is due to the silly primary system which we use here, that there is a belief that 'one must appeal to the base' in order to become nominated. Part of the reason that Trump is leading the polls is that he's willing to speak openly and unequivocally about topics which are on a lot of people's minds, instead of the mealy-mouthed generic statements most politicians (on either side) give. It is generally accepted, though, that his current popularity is a signal from the voters to the 'realistic' candidates that if they want their vote, they need to start addressing issues directly. I don't know many people who honestly think that Trump will end up being the Republican candidate.

There is certainly some debate within internal Republican voter circles on the matter. I'm not one, but I do hang out on military/firearms boards where they are a strong presence. There is something of a schism between those who will vote only for the person who best represents their interests (eg anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc very conservative) and those who believe that that attitude of non-moderation will merely result in the Republican party never again gaining control of the White House. "Have fun having voted your conscience in the minority of Congress and not controlling anything."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Black Oil

Not entirely sure what's meant by "European liberals", anyway...

The belief Republicans vote based on the behaviour pattern of "crazies" does not reflect my experience with ordinary Americans, tbh.

There is a difference between what goes on on the national stage and why ordinary people vote/subscribe to Republican day-to-day. It's really down to their world view and they who feel best reflects this at the ballot box. The parish pump isn't unique to Ireland.

rain_soaked

Brian? wrote: »

I've lived in the USA and am friends withe several registered Republicans. I know many more then I'm friends with. The vote republican in spite of the crazies we hear about, not because of them. They also display alarming ignorance about the world, but I don't know if that has anything to do with their voting preference.

The majority of republican voters are not far right Christians or libertarians or ignorant red necks. They're simple working people who've been bamboozled into believing the GOP has their best interests at heart. Neither political party in the US has their best interest at heart really, but I'd give a slight edge to the Dems as they need the Unions.

im centre right by irish standards but i also think a person on modest wages has no business voting republican in america , ive watched documentaries where people who were working suffered an injury and had to rely on charity doctors in order to get treated , one incident involved a construction worker who was on the verge of loosing his leg to gangarine , this man had always worked but obviously had no college education so he was always pretty poor

the republicans adamantly oppose public healthcare , ive relatives in BC canada and while far to the right of most canadians , believe in their nations health system , a man should not be faced with the prospect of loosing his leg just because he couldnt afford to spend 1500 dollars per month on health insurance

NI24

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah, except it's mostly bull****. No offense.

The Fiscally Conservative thing: before President Clinton, only Dwight D Eisenhower had issued a balanced budget - while building the Interstate System. Clinton provided balanced budgets in 1999, 2000, and 2001, with an initial reported surplus in 1998. The deficit has dipped under Obama but I don't think the budget was balanced.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/want-to-shut-a-republican-up-just-show-them-this/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Federalist System of Government, and Individual Liberty: a vehement agenda to, among other things, restrict the right of a woman to govern her own body, and establish "traditional marriage" over the legislative actions of individual states like California for example. And a war on drugs which has less to do with personal harm than it does not aligning with the agenda of the tobacco/pharma lobbies that don't want people turning to medicine you can grow at home, it destroys their business models.

Tolerance, Inclusiveness, and Optimism: I'm sorry, this coming from the party that regularly calls its members RINOs and ousted Boehner over his views on the Planned Parenthood clusterdongle?

Because most voters don't pay attention to the details.

Especially during election cycles and whenever a politically catalytic news story comes up, Republicans and pro-GOP outlets (like Rupert Murdoch's FOX) will spin up the rage machines. Democrats do this too, mind. Newtown CT was an excuse to polarize the country over gun legislation for example. Many such examples have taken place over the last decade but almost no new legislation ever happens. We're seeing it now with Planned Parenthood - google Carly Fiorina's comments on it; the GOP is drumming up the issue even when its a non-starter, there is no evidence in the videos but Carly says flat out 'the video shows live babies with beating hearts being kept alive to transport nerve tissue' - which fact-checkers have had a field day with. Even FOX tried to correct her on this. But that's not the point - the GOP motives have always been to divide/rile the voter base with social issues. Every election cycle, in some form or another, we hear about women's rights, gun control etc. even though typically nothing ever changes in those regards, it is only to scare those voters into electing these people. With enough money, most politicans will gladly turn a blind eye to common sense. Great example in Climate change. The Koch Brothers (big, big oil tycoons) are spending $889 Million this election to support politicians who deny that climate change is a problem for instance - because if climate change WAS a real, scientific issue (...it is) then that would mean oil companies would take a hit, either in demand or supply or regulatory costs. The longer they can keep global climate change 'a myth', the longer they can keep maximizing profits. Most voters will fall in line with what the right-wing outlet tells them, "it's all a myth, the democrats just want to help their crony solar industry" etc.

Most people believe in trickle down economics, bizarrely. Even though all the numbers point to a huge (and getting huger) divide, people think "but yeah, if I can just get up to the top 10% or whatever, I'll be filthy rich! The American Dream!" Because our economy is convoluted and not simple to understand, our stock market has become a day-trading bazaar, etc. that its easier to just take what the people on television are telling you at face value.

Bottom line, the republicans have figured out if you can terrify people into voting based on a thick social issue (like Obamacare, like Abortion, like Gay Marriage) then you can win. Obamacare for instance, the GOP made a big media circus during a critical midterm, got in on the promise of ending obamacare (surely knowing it would never work) and have wasted legislative time trying to repeal it well over 40 times. I've lost count. But as long as they're seen doing it, their supporters will keep supporting them.

As far as the minimum wage though, it's risky to raise it over time like Sanders proposes, but at the same time he is also discussing our trade agreements: right now we have to compete with workers overseas that work for pennies an hour, even at $7.25/her (as it is), is still a competitive issue.

edit: by the way, how long has this sort of populist manipulation been going on? To give you an idea, pre Civil War, at it's apex, only 385,000 individuals owned slaves - less than 2% of the white population (less than 5% of the southern white population), yet they were able to entice about half the US (about 31 million people total US pop at the time) to fight a war for the right to own slaves among other things, and 620,000 people died - and people still wave that flag today...

You make a few fair points but I find it ironic you use the word polarizing to describe political motives because that's exactly what you've done right here-- thrown around a bunch of insults which do nothing but further divide the American public. We all know that calling someone anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage is just code for racist, sexist, and homophobic which is why so many are quick to deny that Republicans identify with those policies--they know what comes next. I mean, just look what you did in your post; you attempted to attribute the pro-slavery agenda to the Republican party (for those who don't know, it was the Democrats who were, generally speaking, pro-slavery). Unless of course by "they" you are referring to the populist machine you spoke of earlier, and if that's the case you are right-- the democrats were very keen to rabble-rouse a bunch of Southerners into fighting a war that killed thousands of people.

It's so funny to hear all these Americans fall into the mindset of liberals=Democrats, conservatives=Republicans because for my parents (and their parents and their parents' parents and so on) it was the literal opposite (my mom still uses the phrase Southern Democrats to describe the politicians who voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s). Having said this, it is fair to say that in modern America Republicans fall on the more conservative side of the political spectrum or that conservatives tend to come from a certain racial group and perhaps gender, I'm not contesting that. What I'm contesting is this idea that Republicans are anti-abortion, for instance, without taking into account all the different views of abortion. Or immigration. Or any of the other million issues that affects society. I understand that people don't have time to figure everybody out and pigeon-holing is natural but the fact remains that the United States is a country of over 300 million people--generalizing them as Republicans are this and Democrats are that is silly.

NI24

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Uhhh, say what now? I believe one of the main mantras of John McCain/Sarah Palin's campaign was to "get those jobs back in American hands"! I'm paraphrasing obviously, but since when is strict immigration a Demorat thing?

asherbassad

Zascar wrote: »

I was never really into politics but recently I've become fascinated by it, the Presidential race especially. The one thing I really don't get however, is the Republican party. Now clearly I have very different views - I'm a big Bernie Sanders fan and the news sources I read (mostly links from Reddit) clearly lean to the left - but even when trying to be unbiased, I still can't get my head around 99% of the stuff I hear from the Republicans.

Now I'm sure if your rich, white and greedy the Republican party may represent your interests, but it dumbfounds me how they get such massive support from Ordinary people across america who really would not benefit from their policies much at all... But just watching the Republican debates and the sh1t they are spouting, how can Ordinary decent people still side with the party with all the craziness that goes on?

Off the top of my head, here are a few things of late that make me scratch my head: Still supportun Tax breaks for the Rich and trickle down economics, Trumps constant crazy comments which would end anyone elses career immediately. They deny climate change and evolution, they want to cut back Obamacare, Medicaid and Medicare. End concept of Minimum wage. End any gun control. Defunding Planned Parenthood when none of the government money goes into abortions. They are militantly pro life but don't care much when the baby is born - no parental leave, and then they cut school funding and education programs. Scott Walker slashes Education programs but gives a billionaire $500m for a stadium. They were against the Iran deal without even reading it and want to bomb them as soon as they get into office. They are massively racist and anti Islam. The Christians even hate the Pope. They want to keep poor Americans from voting. Generally blaming Obama for everything...

I mean do ordinary Republicans not just see all this from their party and think this is nuts? How can you stand by this and some of the even more crazy stuff that comes out of the party? The media mocks them constantly. The Democrats don't get anywhere near the mocking or criticism, does this mean nothing to them? Noam Chompski says the GOP is now basically just a Radical Insurgency. They basically seem to just want to oppose everything the democrats do - happy to **** down the government

Is there something I'm not getting? Genuinely, can anyone help me understand the Republican Party?

There is no difference between either Republican or Democratic party. The system of governance in the US is predicated on control by corporations and the idea that there is a two party system merely gives people the illusion that they actually have some kind of choice when in effect it is meaningless who they vote for.
The issues they pretend to squabble about are always pathetic, meaningless little wedge issues that have zero effect on the public. Things like abortion, same sex marriage, crap like that. This keeps people yammering about non-issues while the so called government, whether Republican or Democratic are simply doing the bidding of corporations.

Roosevelt only introduced the New Deal to fend off a workers revolution. He certainly didn't do it out of any love for the common man. He was an industrialist just like the Vanderbilts, Harrimans, Browns, Bushes, etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

We all know that calling someone anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage is just code for racist, sexist, and homophobic which is why so many are quick to deny that Republicans identify with those policies--they know what comes next.

Pardon me - but if I wanted to label Republicans racist, etc., I would have. Being 'anti-immigration' has less to do with racism and more to do with concerns about illegal immigration, the onset burden on social services and law enforcement, etc. - because a Rep. Politician might make a racist comment, has no bearing on the legislation being pushed for in the Legislative branch. Anti-abortion has no direct causation with sexism, either, as you will often hear more justification for the position through sanctity of life, rights of the fetus, etc. - so that is also a false supposition. As far as gay marriage goes - it is in fact bigotry toward homosexuals, no prettying that up, other than to say 'traditional marriage' is used as a public outry which does not jive with the Establishment Clause, 'think of the children' etc.

I mean, just look what you did in your post; you attempted to attribute the pro-slavery agenda to the Republican party (for those who don't know, it was the Democrats who were, generally speaking, pro-slavery). Unless of course by "they" you are referring to the populist machine you spoke of earlier, and if that's the case you are right-- the democrats were very keen to rabble-rouse a bunch of Southerners into fighting a war that killed thousands of people.

No, you completely misunderstand my point, as I took American History and am perfectly aware that the Democrat party of the era was centrally involved. We also know that the political parties of today are not the parties of 100 years ago. That wasn't the point I was making: the point I am making is exactly what I said, a well organized political campaign saw a large majority of Americans support the personal ambitions/desires/whims of a relatively small minority of slave owners. This highlights that often people will vote en masse for things that provide no real benefit for them, when presented with an organized and outspoken minority. This was done to highlight that today, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, there are a large number of voters who believe climate change is a hoax, because a proportionate number of politicians are being paid to support the idea that it is a lie.

I hope this clears up your confusion, please ask me to clarify my points in the future if you are unsure of the message, before you place words in my mouth.

MajorMax

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, LOL. Well then, they sure have an odd way of spelling 'Democracy.' 'Republic' would have been more accurate. :rolleyes:

Lincoln was either the greatest president that America has ever had or it's greatest tyrant

A. Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of the South. Though this was legal, there were many northern protests.
B. He increased the size of the army. (He called up & enlisted troops.) Only Congress can legally do this.
C. Without an appropriation from Congress, he contracted with private companies and citizens on behalf of the military.
D. He suspended habeas corpus (holding people without charge) in Maryland & West Virginia & arrested Confederates
e. He used armed federal troops to supervise voting in border states.
F. He suspended some newspapers and jailed some journalists.
G. He lied to congress about a peace offer from the South (an impeachable offense).
H. Introduced personal income tax to the United states

NI24

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whether or not the Democrats are more beholden to labor unions is irrelevant-- the fact remains, part of many Republican candidates' campaigns are tighter restrictions on immigration. Strict immigration is very much a "Republican thing", although I don't truly believe there's much of a difference between the two parties (but that's a whole other argument). I'm not really sure why you think differently? And selfishly, the repercussions for Ireland don't make a bit of difference to me--I'm not Irish nor do I live there. They can hardly fool me on something I never thought about in the first place.

NI24

Overheal wrote: »

Pardon me - but if I wanted to label Republicans racist, etc., I would have. Being 'anti-immigration' has less to do with racism and more to do with concerns about illegal immigration, the onset burden on social services and law enforcement, etc. - because a Rep. Politician might make a racist comment, has no bearing on the legislation being pushed for in the Legislative branch. Anti-abortion has no direct causation with sexism, either, as you will often hear more justification for the position through sanctity of life, rights of the fetus, etc. - so that is also a false supposition. As far as gay marriage goes - it is in fact bigotry toward homosexuals, no prettying that up, other than to say 'traditional marriage' is used as a public outry which does not jive with the Establishment Clause, 'think of the children' etc.

I am completely aware that they are false suppositions, but regardless, these are the labels that many Republicans have to deal with and I was in no way attributing that labeling to you. And pardon me with misunderstanding, but a token "the democrats do it too!" doesn't really mitigate the diatribe you made about the Republican party. In the interest of fairness, it would have been helpful if you showed how the Democratic Party "spin up the rage machines" as well, and with the same detail as you did the Republican Party. By the way, I wasn't the only one who misunderstood the point you made about slavery and populist manipulation.

Overheal wrote: »

No, you completely misunderstand my point, as I took American History and am perfectly aware that the Democrat party of the era was centrally involved. We also know that the political parties of today are not the parties of 100 years ago. That wasn't the point I was making: the point I am making is exactly what I said, a well organized political campaign saw a large majority of Americans support the personal ambitions/desires/whims of a relatively small minority of slave owners. This highlights that often people will vote en masse for things that provide no real benefit for them, when presented with an organized and outspoken minority. This was done to highlight that today, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, there are a large number of voters who believe climate change is a hoax, because a proportionate number of politicians are being paid to support the idea that it is a lie.

I hope this clears up your confusion, please ask me to clarify my points in the future if you are unsure of the message, before you place words in my mouth.

I agree that a large majority can be manipulated into fighting for a minority, but is that really the case with the Civil War? Were there not many reasons --besides slavery-- that people fought? Even today you will find many Southerners who would like to secede from the North and I don't think slavery has anything to do with it.

Incidentally, the point you made about trickle down economics was spot on and I wish someone would provide the evidence for it (even though it's outside the scope of this thread). It's a very interesting debate.

BlitzKrieg

My impression of the republican party has been that they've been much stronger at a local level and it just doesnt translate to a federal level very well because despite the belief that all politics is local in a country as big as the united states local politics are very different in different parts of the country. There are very few common points you can take from a local level and run with them nationally where they dont start to have a crazy edge to them. Everybody cares about their beliefs and personal rights etc, but those are things where it could be an issue for you in your home town or on your street or over some personal issue or complaint but to try and take that to national levels you are lifting up things that would be back of the mind issues (something I think most Irish Catholics would relate to where they have a very laxed approach to the church...its just there) and try and make it a campaign stand...well thats where really its only the more extreme people (again recent irish referendum is a great example of how this happens) that are going to be all for it and the moderates who would consider these points locally dont feel too comfortable with them being the focus of federal policy.

But thats just my observation I am fully aware it could be misguided, I understand there is a great read in how the republican party shifted post Nixon leading into Reagan that kind of relates to the above but truthfully it's a bit of a fog as I covered it 10 years ago at this point, yeesh.

Overheal

NI24 wrote: »

I am completely aware that they are false suppositions, but regardless, these are the labels that many Republicans have to deal with and I was in no way attributing that labeling to you. And pardon me with misunderstanding, but a token "the democrats do it too!" doesn't really mitigate the diatribe you made about the Republican party. In the interest of fairness, it would have been helpful if you showed how the Democratic Party "spin up the rage machines" as well, and with the same detail as you did the Republican Party. By the way, I wasn't the only one who misunderstood the point you made about slavery and populist manipulation.

I do. See my thread mentioning the influence of Larry Wilmore on the political climate.

I agree that a large majority can be manipulated into fighting for a minority, but is that really the case with the Civil War? Were there not many reasons --besides slavery-- that people fought? Even today you will find many Southerners who would like to secede from the North and I don't think slavery has anything to do with it.

There are doubtless going to papers out there detailing the historical politics leading up to the civil war (or in lieu of one, newspaper archives, which were a great resource when I had to research the Pony bloody Express) I'm wagering that just as now, there were some of those shared feelings also, but I would argue that the richer, plantation running slaveowners of the south would have additionally saw to sow their own influence in the political climate ie. get people riled up in a manner conducive to their agenda.

Amerika

MajorMax wrote: »

Lincoln was either the greatest president that America has ever had or it's greatest tyrant

A. Lincoln proclaimed a blockade of the South. Though this was legal, there were many northern protests.
B. He increased the size of the army. (He called up & enlisted troops.) Only Congress can legally do this.
C. Without an appropriation from Congress, he contracted with private companies and citizens on behalf of the military.
D. He suspended habeas corpus (holding people without charge) in Maryland & West Virginia & arrested Confederates
e. He used armed federal troops to supervise voting in border states.
F. He suspended some newspapers and jailed some journalists.
G. He lied to congress about a peace offer from the South (an impeachable offense).
H. Introduced personal income tax to the United states

Oh, Lincoln was no saint and did some reprehensible things according to our laws. But in the end he abolished slavery, preserved the union of states, established the US National Banking System, and signed the first of the Homestead Acts which allowed poor people to obtain land, which makes him one of our greatest Presidents.

Overheal

In turn FDR did a lot of things, many of which were good (social reforms, defeating the Nazis, the wartime economy), but also some things like an array of war crimes (interment camps, nuclear bombings, etc). As such he is also seen historically as a great President despite human failings.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

In turn FDR did a lot of things, many of which were good (social reforms, defeating the Nazis, the wartime economy), but also some things like an array of war crimes (interment camps, nuclear bombings, etc). As such he is also seen historically as a great President despite human failings.

Internment camps weren't a war crime, but they were arguably a violation of Constitutional rights to due process (The matter has not yet been brought to the courts, but the courts should rule that way if it ever goes there). Nuclear bombings were certainly not war crimes, as there was no prohibition against it. (Or firebombing, or bombing of cities...)

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

In turn FDR did a lot of things, many of which were good (social reforms, defeating the Nazis, the wartime economy), but also some things like an array of war crimes (interment camps, nuclear bombings, etc). As such he is also seen historically as a great President despite human failings.

FDR was dead by the time the first A-bomb was dropped. But I get your point. He wasn't perfect, he was IMO, the greatest president of all.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Internment camps weren't a war crime, but they were arguably a violation of Constitutional rights to due process (The matter has not yet been brought to the courts, but the courts should rule that way if it ever goes there). Nuclear bombings were certainly not war crimes, as there was no prohibition against it. (Or firebombing, or bombing of cities...)

But in hindsight, I think we would still partially regret nuking that many people. Yes, the devil you know, etc. but yeah, point being Presidents can still be great even in the face of some rather controversial decisions they might make.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

But in hindsight, I think we would still partially regret nuking that many people. Yes, the devil you know, etc. but yeah, point being Presidents can still be great even in the face of some rather controversial decisions they might make.

Case in point... George W Bush. :P

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Case in point... George W Bush. :P

Great? Great in terms of the Great Recession, starting the 2 longest wars in US history, and doubling the Federal deficit.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Great? Great in terms of the Great Recession, starting the 2 longest wars in US history, and doubling the Federal deficit.

How did I know that would bring the Black Swan out from hiding?

Bush is a genius. Those people who once decried him “Worst S#$% In History” and the “Most F#%$# B@*%$# Who Ever Walked The Earth” are starting to make small caveats in their epithets. Bush resurgence and popularity grows in relation to the longer he remains out of the news... and it’s only been 7 years. Absence has made the heart grow fonder. In another 25 years, if he maintains his disappearance from the public eye, at this rate, we’ll be proclaiming him “The Greatest President Who Ever Lived.”

(Don’t shoot the messenger )

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

FDR was dead by the time the first A-bomb was dropped. But I get your point. He wasn't perfect, he was IMO, the greatest president of all.

IMO he was one of the worst....The New Deal was one of the first times government got involved...It prolonged the Depression to the max.

On from this came other government success stories such as The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty....If we had no FDR, maybe we could have missed on out these programs.

Black Swan wrote: »

Great? Great in terms of the Great Recession, starting the 2 longest wars in US history, and doubling the Federal deficit.

FDR more than doubled the US debt and also got the US involved in WW2.

He also signed executive order number 6102 which stole the gold from US citizens.

Also he brought in the minimum wage and ever since the black community has been punished for it.

Thargor

Ha, yeah any other president would have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor.

gobsh!te

Thargor wrote: »

Ha, yeah any other president would have turned the other cheek after Pearl Harbor.

I understand fighting the Japanese but sending troops to Europe????

Overheal

There was an interesting comment made about John Voight this week (over some inane thing he spouted that Progressivism = Communism): that 'John Voight represents the liberally held views of his time.'

How much is it that the Republican party is just a generational amalgamation of once-liberal views that are now viewed as conservative?

Thargor

gobsh!te wrote: »

I understand fighting the Japanese but sending troops to Europe????

Im sorry are you arguing it was a mistake or something? What would you like to have happened?