metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Figgers.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republicans Used to be So Much Nicer. What Happened?
- Thread starter Buttercup
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
I believe it went astray on June 18, 1856, the day after the birth of the Republican Party as a unified political force was announced. Hasn't been a nice organization ever since, and from what I've observed, it's just the nature of the animal. Not-nice people gravitate to the Republican party because it's so welcoming.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
OK, prepare for this shock as I am now going to defend the Republican Party-- at least what it used to be.
In the 1800's through to the early stages of the Great Depression (early 1930's), the party was the more liberal of the two major parties and actually pushed a more humane agenda on several fronts. However, it was during the administration of FDR that the Democratic party bought into Eugene Deb's economic proposals, although they didn't give him credit for it, whereas they became the more liberal party, although the "southern Democrats" didn't get the memo.
Even after that, the Republican Party of my parents was mostly sane, and I even considered myself as such until the early 1960's. If Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were around today, the Republicans would have long run them out on a rail.
The move to the more extreme right began under Reagan, even though he was far more moderate than most Republicans believe about him today. It really was after Reagan that more and more of the Republicans fell off the turnip truck, and a very large contributor to that has been the gerrymandering of districts plus the rise of the right-wing media.
Right after the 2012 election, Bobby Jindal and Lindsey Graham both said that the Republican Party looked like the "party of stupid", and I would suggest that most of us probably know why it looked like that and still does today. It sure ain't the political party that my parents and I used to identify with, let me tell ya.
I say the lunacy race a tie.
I see it from the other end. It is harder and harder to find democrats or the left in general that won't resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them a hundred different type of bigot. It has become impossible to reason with many or in their mind honestly disagree. You have to be a monster to not believe exactly as they do in every way.
The whole idea of discourse is falling apart, from both sides.
The whole idea of discourse is falling apart, from both sides.
Wirey
Fartist
A tyrant stealing from his own people and socialism are two different things. And my browser won't show most of the article because it's trying to inject a virus into my hard drive.
It's a socialist virus.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You just love those false equivalencies, doncha? C'mon, when you listen to all the craziness with the Pubs, do you really see anywhere near that same level of looneyness with da Dems with all the name calling and over-the-top insults with the former?
That is the false false equivalency fallacy.
You might soon be voting for the gal who voted for the Iraq war ($2,000,000,000,000 ultimate cost?) & its continuation.
And read my signature.
Is this a person with all her marbles?
She makes The Donald look good.
I think I was being charitable to the Democrats.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
She wasn't the only one who voted for that war, which I never supported, btw. I don't use just one item to judge any candidate as I'm not a one-issue voter. If you think she "makes The Donald look good", well, I have to admit that this tells me that eating bacon is even far nastier than I thought.
Ah, False Equivalency. We were starting to wonder if you did not love us anymore.
I blame many pols for that war, not just the Hilldebeast.
But anyone running for prez should be scrutinized for the likelihood that they'll pursue another such debacle.
The false false ones are quite popular.
False equivalency is to say 2 things are equivalent when they're not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Example from the link....
"They're both soft, cuddly pets. There's no difference between a cat and a dog."
False false equivalency is to claim false equivalency when it's a matter of opinion whether 2 things are similar.
Example from earlier....
Hillary Clinton is so bad, she makes Donald Trump look good.
The false false equivalency fallacy is a kind of false fallacy fallacy, ie, a claimed fallacy isn't.
If this all sounds silly, that's because it is.
Last edited:
Buttercup
Veteran Member
"Basically, Bernie admires Socialism in the way its plays out in Nordic countries. I've never gotten the impression that he's a 'hard' Democratic Socialist in that he wants to have that hang tag on his platform."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernie isn't a 'hard' Democratic Socialist - he admires much about the Socialist system, but doesn't plan on adding that ideology to his campaign formally..
Here are a couple of statements he's made through the years on the subject:
“All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small ‘d."
“What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire.”
“To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.”
I don't know of any Democratic Socialist politicians who run on that platform, but there are organizations who espouse those ideals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernie isn't a 'hard' Democratic Socialist - he admires much about the Socialist system, but doesn't plan on adding that ideology to his campaign formally..
Here are a couple of statements he's made through the years on the subject:
“All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small ‘d."
“What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire.”
“To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of living.”
I don't know of any Democratic Socialist politicians who run on that platform, but there are organizations who espouse those ideals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
Last edited:
Oh, right. Yes, I agree. Bernie Sanders looks a lot more attuned to the Nordic model.
Is that a good reason to go out of his way to avoid the S-word? I guess I don't know. I hope not.
Is that a good reason to go out of his way to avoid the S-word? I guess I don't know. I hope not.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Since when was this discussion on the issues?
Just watch the debates and you can see the drastic difference. Even now, when the democratic race is heating up, the absurdity in the discourse of the two democrats is a bastion of civility compared to the republicans.
But yes, if you only vote based upon war and the candidates chances of taking us into one, Trump beats almost everyone as he hasn't voted on anything. But when I listen to his rhetoric, he seems perfectly okay with the notion of taking out Iran.
It looks like since post #14.
I purposely don't watch debates.
This might very well be a point in the Pubs' favor, ie, that there's a real race,
instead of a "fixed" one. (Although Bernie is ruining the party's plan.)
Since I consume primarily written news, I see a different picture.
The Bill & Hill v Bernie feud looks pretty vicious.
Bill even blamed Bern for sexist internet posts against her.
And now Bernie is using boys as bait to attract women voters!
This risk does make Trump unattractive. (He's not my candidate.)
Btw, war is not the only issue for me, but it is (& should be for all) a significant one.
What bothers me is that it's given little attention in both parties.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Which written news do you read? The National Enquirer?
Of course it is. You can't sustain our military spending without actual war popping up occasionally.
Oh, so many....
Wash Post
Chicago Tribune
NYT
Yahoo
And many more.
I mostly use the news aggregator, The Drudge Report.
(It has incredible breadth of politically diverse sources.....& catchy titles!)
Of course it is. You can't sustain our military spending without actual war popping up occasionally.[/QUOTE]
We certainly can!
That's my favorite approach.....spending it on a strong defense which we avoid needing & using.
Last edited: