US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Abraham Lincoln. Seven States seceded from the country before he took office, without giving him a chance.

Somebody told me that Lincoln wasn't the first republican that he was a whig or something like that and that they adopted him as the first Republican.

Speaking of the Republicans and the Democrats do you see them changing? I sure have ... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.

I know it's a left and right thing, liberal and not so liberal, but still they seem to be changing.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by em2nought

O' captain! My captain!

Resist always.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Somebody told me that Lincoln wasn't the first republican that he was a whig or something like that and that they adopted him as the first Republican.

Lincoln was originally a member, and later a leader, of the Whig Party in Illinois. The Whigs had formed in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They ran several candidates, including a few winners, but fell apart in the 1850s over the issue of slavery in new territories, with members on both sides. After the dissolution of the Whigs some of their former members helped form the Republican Party in 1854, and their first Presidential candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856.

Speaking of the Republicans and the Democrats do you see them changing?

Constantly.

I sure have ... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.

Not at all. The Democrats were the ones who supported slavery and post-Civil War oppression, and in the 1950s it was the Democrats who opposed integration and civil rights. The Republicans were the party of Abolition, though as with any group not all members felt the same way. The situation as you describe it is a fairly recent development, and it developed slowly over the decades. In the late 1940s President Harry Truman, described by some as an avowed racists, started Federal legislation which would bring equality to the Armed Forces.

In the 1950s Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey supported the first civil rights legislation in Congress, while his fellow senator John F. Kennedy opposed the bill twice before finally voting for it. At the same time Vice President Richard Nixon was one of the bill's backers. Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson opposed all of Truman's civil rights proposals. President Eisenhower defended segregation in the military but supported some civil rights reforms. He supported school integration in Washington, DC. When Southern Democrats refused to obey the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v The Board of Education, Eisenhower who voiced disapproval for the ruling but still sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce it. On the other side, Southern Governors who supported Brown were Democrats.

At this same time conservative writers like William F. Buckley were starting to be heard, and they were more racist than their Republican forebears. Buckley went so far as to defend the rights of Whites to refuse integration as they were "The advanced race."

By 1960 the major candidates for President, Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon, were both moderates on race. When Kennedy was elected he was not much more supportive of civil rights than he was a decade earlier, but he eventually signed new civil rights legislation.

After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist, with candidates usually being moderate at best, while the Democrats have intentionally aligned themselves toward black voters, proclaiming civil rights policies as part of their Party agenda.

I know, the question was about Party stances on poverty, not race, but it should be fairly obvious that the two are closely aligned in the policies and ideas of both major parties.
Here is a thorough background for the preceding information:
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/c...8&context=ojur

I know it's a left and right thing, liberal and not so liberal, but still they seem to be changing.

Constantly. In some areas they are the exact opposite of what they were when the parties were formed. They will continue to change, as one party and then the other try to attract certain types of voters. And that's what both parties are really about - getting elected.

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist,

How so,, you'd like to think that,,, care to back that up with some proof,,, Yes more southern states have become republican,,, doesn't make them racist,,and yes we had our first Black democrat president if he had been conservative you'd have ran him out on a rail..,, Former speaker of the house Democrat Senator Bryd was a full blown klans man ,,Hillary and then Governor Bill Clinton brought forth Confederate flag day in their home state..Only Democrats believe minorities are to stupid or lazy to get a photo ID to vote ,,,and need all sorts of their help to make it in this country that's pretty racist don't you think ??????? To make it simple if you don't believe in the constitution and the founding documents,,and believe that all men are created equal by their creator ,, then probably you are a racist ,, Me believing in the sovereignty of this nation does not make me a racist. And after all this time,, Steve you never once told me what the end run was to be after all this liberal phooy,, what your uthopia would look like or what it would be based on ,,, .. Almost forgot Democrats are more violent than Republicans we got to see that spectical first hand this last year didn't we and maybe we'll see some more of that liberal democrat violent behavior by the end of the week.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by yubba

friends say I should go to the range more,, I tell them I get more stick and trigger time than most,with IL-2 and the tank sims.

You own guns and think that playing video games counts as practice?

[August]

Originally Posted by yubba

... friends say I should go to the range more,, I tell them I get more stick and trigger time than most,with IL-2 and the tank sims.

Originally Posted by Platapus

You own guns and think that playing video games counts as practice?

He can't be serious, can he?

[Dowly]

Well... they both have a trigger...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Well... they both have a trigger...

He certainly is very easily.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

He can't be serious, can he?

Perhaps he kicks butt at Call of Duty. That is the same as AIT right?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

... the DNC has always been for the poor people (at least in Texas and perhaps the whole South) raising taxes and passing welfare reforms and that the Republicans are for the rich lowering the taxes.
.

That's false.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Lincoln was originally a member, and later a leader, of the Whig Party in Illinois. The Whigs had formed in opposition to President Andrew Jackson. They ran several candidates, including a few winners, but fell apart in the 1850s over the issue of slavery in new territories, with members on both sides. After the dissolution of the Whigs some of their former members helped form the Republican Party in 1854, and their first Presidential candidate was John C. Fremont in 1856.


Constantly.


Not at all. The Democrats were the ones who supported slavery and post-Civil War oppression, and in the 1950s it was the Democrats who opposed integration and civil rights. The Republicans were the party of Abolition, though as with any group not all members felt the same way. The situation as you describe it is a fairly recent development, and it developed slowly over the decades. In the late 1940s President Harry Truman, described by some as an avowed racists, started Federal legislation which would bring equality to the Armed Forces.

In the 1950s Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey supported the first civil rights legislation in Congress, while his fellow senator John F. Kennedy opposed the bill twice before finally voting for it. At the same time Vice President Richard Nixon was one of the bill's backers. Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson opposed all of Truman's civil rights proposals. President Eisenhower defended segregation in the military but supported some civil rights reforms. He supported school integration in Washington, DC. When Southern Democrats refused to obey the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v The Board of Education, Eisenhower who voiced disapproval for the ruling but still sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce it. On the other side, Southern Governors who supported Brown were Democrats.

At this same time conservative writers like William F. Buckley were starting to be heard, and they were more racist than their Republican forebears. Buckley went so far as to defend the rights of Whites to refuse integration as they were "The advanced race."

By 1960 the major candidates for President, Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard M. Nixon, were both moderates on race. When Kennedy was elected he was not much more supportive of civil rights than he was a decade earlier, but he eventually signed new civil rights legislation.

After Kennedy's assassination, the 1964 candidates were incumbent Lyndon Johnson and Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. Johnson was fairly moderate of civil rights, while Goldwater was a firm opponent. Since that time the Republican Party has become more and more racist, with candidates usually being moderate at best, while the Democrats have intentionally aligned themselves toward black voters, proclaiming civil rights policies as part of their Party agenda.

I know, the question was about Party stances on poverty, not race, but it should be fairly obvious that the two are closely aligned in the policies and ideas of both major parties.
Here is a thorough background for the preceding information:
http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/c...8&context=ojur



Constantly. In some areas they are the exact opposite of what they were when the parties were formed. They will continue to change, as one party and then the other try to attract certain types of voters. And that's what both parties are really about - getting elected.

Excellent post, Steve. As has been noted before, in other threads, the grip of the Democrats on the South pre-Civil Rights was so solid, when Eisenhower, a bona fide national War Hero, ran for President in 1952, he won every single state with the exception of the solid block of the Southern States; the hatred of the South towards the GOP was so great, even the stature and status of Ike could not beak the grip. The grip did break following the coming of Civil Rights and the GOP formulated a plan to capitalize on the disaffection of Southern segregationists with the DEMs; this was called the "Southern Strategy":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Over the course of time, the "Southern Strategy" has come back to snakebite the GOP and, in 2005, the then Chairman of the Republican National Committee addressed, in person, the NAACP, and publicly apologized for the GOP's adoption of the "Southern Strategy"; there is still a strong animus against the GOP by African-Americans and other minorities, costing the GOP a great many votes, as evidenced by the popular vote results in the last Presidential Election...

Originally Posted by Dowly

Well... they both have a trigger...

"This is my weapon, this is my gun..."...



<O>

[Oberon]

All this recent politics can't help but remind me of the American Party (of the 1850s), and the nickname that it received, and I wonder perhaps if the collapse of the second party system can be transferred onto the last decade or two and upon what side. Both parties are in pretty poor shape, whoever won this election got themselves eight years of a reprieve, but ultimately something is going to have to give.
I wonder what it would take to shatter the two party system, to break down the Democrats and the Republicans into seperate parties reflecting the splits within them, and indeed how many parties would be needed to accomodate these splits. I'm aware of a two way split in the Dems between the Bernie and Hillary sides, but in the Republicans it seems to be more of a three way split between the Trumpists, Neo-Cons and Tea Party groups.

Either which way, there's going to be a lot of political upheavals ahead, that much is certain.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by yubba

How so,, you'd like to think that,,, care to back that up with some proof,,,

Perhaps a better term would have been that the Republican Party has shown a consistently worse record on civil rights. But wait, I said that too. And if you had actually read the article I linked you would have seen the proof.

:Yes more southern states have become republican,,, doesn't make them racist,,and yes we had our first Black democrat president if he had been conservative you'd have ran him out on a rail..,,

I would have? You seem to be a person who only sees what you want to see. If you read these forums you would have might have noticed that I am consistently Independent, falling to the Conservative or Liberal side depending on the individual issue. In those silly tests that determine if you are one or the other, I always land smack dab in the middle. In fact, it's on record here that I'm no fan of Obama, though I don't hate him as some seem to do, and those who can remember will know that I was no fan of Bush, though I didn't hate him as some seemed to. In fact, at the time Obama was elected I said that while I was glad we finally had a black President I wished he was less Liberal.

Former speaker of the house Democrat Senator Bryd was a full blown klans man

And David Duke urged his fellow KKKers to support Trump. That in itself doesn't indict Trump, but the fact that he never disavowed Duke's endorsement does. When the KKK switched parties they were instrumental in recruiting thousands of southern white voters in the GOP. This doesn't mean that all Republicans are racist, or all Democrats, or even a small part of either Party. What it means is that these things go on with both sides, and the Republican Party (not the people) has shown less interest in Civil Rights in recent years. This may be, as one writer suggested, that they became complacent and thought the battle had been won. I'm the first to admit that I don't know.

,,Hillary and then Governor Bill Clinton brought forth Confederate flag day in their home state..

As did South Carolina Governor (and Republican) Nikki Haley. John McCain was against the flag, then changed his public stance in an attempt to win Southern votes. Your point?

Only Democrats believe minorities are to stupid or lazy to get a photo ID to vote ,,,and need all sorts of their help to make it in this country that's pretty racist don't you think ???????

I agree on that one. In fact I've said so in the past.

To make it simple if you don't believe in the constitution and the founding documents,,and believe that all men are created equal by their creator ,, then probably you are a racist ,, Me believing in the sovereignty of this nation does not make me a racist.

I never said you were. That you would equate my comments on the historical stances shown by certain Party leaders as a personal attack, or a general attack on all members of that party or that way of thinking, shows your own narrow-mindedness and a lack of reading and understanding my position on these matters. There aren't too many ardent Democrats on this forum, but I've lost friends on FaceBook from both sides of the political spectrum because of my willingness to challenge both sides equally.

And after all this time,, Steve you never once told me what the end run was to be after all this liberal phooy,, what your uthopia would look like or what it would be based on ,,, ..

How would I know? I'm not a Liberal. I'm also not a lockstep hardcore Conservative either. Both sides have their bad qualities, and both have their good. It's the people who refuse to see the other side's viewpoint and at least attempt to understand it who are, in my estimation, the cause of the problem.

Almost forgot Democrats are more violent than Republicans we got to see that spectical first hand this last year didn't we and maybe we'll see some more of that liberal democrat violent behavior by the end of the week.

Again I agree. I just don't use it to try and prove that "my side is better than yours". There shouldn't be sides, but there are, and it's all the cause of people who are so convinced they're right that they are incapable of discussing the issues like adults, and trying to find workable solutions.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...but the fact that he never disavowed Duke's endorsement does.

I hate to help Yubbas arguments but he most certainly did.

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN."David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politi...avid-duke-kkk/


Now I understand why the Democrats would ignore this seeing as it goes against their Republicans are Evil narrative but a self described neutral independent like yourself? You must have just missed it amid all the political noise I guess.