Can the USA survive when one party is mentally unhinged ?

[UNLV2001]

2 hours ago, son of a gun said:

A true disgrace to Lincoln and all that the real Republican Party ever stood for.

The republican party of recent years is not the republican party of the 1860 or 1910..........it's the Democratic party of 1860  

The parties switched places over the 1930-1980 years 

[thelawlorfaithful]

44 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

 

Charlie Kirk was for it before he was against it. Flip flop city.

Justin Amash for the points.

 

I saw that. What a clown.

[sactowndog]

2 hours ago, son of a gun said:

A true disgrace to Lincoln and all that the real Republican Party ever stood for.

Got to be proud if you are from Montana this guy represents you.   The Republican Party resembles the Jim Crow south more than the party of Lincoln.  

[happycamper]

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Didn’t even think of that. That takes it to a whole ‘nother level of comedy. 

And then there's Labor day 

[son of a gun]

2 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

The republican party of recent years is not the republican party of the 1860 or 1910..........it's the Democratic party of 1860  

The parties switched places over the 1930-1980 years 

Eh, I'd say Eisenhower was a pretty good President. But, yeah. Not much good before and after him though.

[FresnoFacts]

1 hour ago, son of a gun said:

Eh, I'd say Eisenhower was a pretty good President. But, yeah. Not much good before and after him though.

Eisenhower would be considered too far left for much of the GOP's far-right today. Heck, Eisenhower was considered too far left for many in the GOP during his presidency such as the McCarthy/John Birch followers.

That reminds me of historian Richard Hofstadter and his 1955 essay "The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt"

https://theamericanscholar.org/the-pseudo-conservative-revolt/

Much of what Hofstadter wrote back then applies today. It is a good read.

 

[sactowndog]

3 hours ago, son of a gun said:

Eh, I'd say Eisenhower was a pretty good President. But, yeah. Not much good before and after him though.

Reagan wasn’t bad either.  Hell even he would be considered a liberal these days.   

[Nevada Convert]

This kind of thread isn't a bipartisan effort to come up with anything that's new. All it proves is there are mega delusional idiots known as crazy left and inacurate 'vice' non-journalists and the rest of the MSM, plenty of board members running with the Dem Party, and then there are the handful of just stupid stupid nuts in the GOP, such as Molester Slick Hair Boy with his sidekick bitch Horsey Fvck Face......and then the knucklehead Noonans. 

But it's the people on the left that just love this waist of time made up dramaqueen lard of shit just so they can tell their radical friends and tell their stories around the dinner table. You guy are really weird to care about any of this shit. 

[IanforHeisman]

On 6/16/2021 at 7:18 PM, sactowndog said:

Because we were within a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of being an authoritarian state.  
 

Trump did his best to politicize DOJ and DOD. He leveraged US assets to bribe foreign governments to go after his political rivals.   When he lost the election he went to any extreme to overturn.   If Republican’s rightly kicked him to the curb people would move on.  Instead the party is currently purging itself of anyone not loyal to Trump.  
 

The fact that more people aren’t concerned is what should be not understandable.

They know he’s mega corrupt and they don’t care. As long as he hates liberals and Mexicans they’ll continue to worship.

 

 

[Maynard Delecto]

17 hours ago, son of a gun said:

A true disgrace to Lincoln and all that the real Republican Party ever stood for.

Lincoln was the founder of the White Supremacist Liberal movement in America, no wonder you guys hold him in such high esteem

- 09/15/1858

[UNLV2001]

13 hours ago, son of a gun said:

Eh, I'd say Eisenhower was a pretty good President. But, yeah. Not much good before and after him though.

Eisenhower was courted by both parties for the 1952 election - Ike wasn't far right or left 

Biggest rap against Ike was that he golfed a lot (until trump came along) ..........and Ike was also aided by the post WWII economic boom in the US, but overall there's not much Ike did that would be seen as 2008 to 2021 'republican' 

[son of a gun]

2 hours ago, Maynard Delecto said:

Lincoln was the founder of the White Supremacist Liberal movement in America, no wonder you guys hold him in such high esteem

- 09/15/1858

Ideas shift over time, but one of the key reasons why the Republican Party was formed, was to abolish slavery.

Quote

he Republican Party emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act and the expansion of slavery into American territories. The early Republican Party consisted of northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and after 1866, former black slaves. The party had very little support from white Southerners at the time, who predominantly backed the Democratic Party in the Solid South, and from Catholics, who made up a major Democratic voting block. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. The party opposed the expansion of slavery before 1861 and led the fight to destroy the Confederate States of America (1861–1865). While the Republican Party had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, it was very successful in the Northern United States, where by 1858 it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln (the first Republican president) in 1860, the Party's success in guiding the Union to victory in the American Civil War, and the Party's role in the abolition of slavery, the Republican Party largely dominated the national political scene until 1932. In 1912, former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party after being rejected by the GOP and ran unsuccessfully as a third-party presidential candidate calling for social reforms. After 1912, many Roosevelt supporters left the Republican Party, and the Party underwent an ideological shift to the right.^[1] The GOP lost its congressional majorities during the Great Depression (1929–1940); under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats formed a winning New Deal coalition that was dominant from 1932 through 1964.

 

[FresnoFacts]

3 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

Eisenhower was courted by both parties for the 1952 election - Ike wasn't far right or left 

Biggest rap against Ike was that he golfed a lot (until trump came along) ..........and Ike was also aided by the post WWII economic boom in the US, but overall there's not much Ike did that would be seen as 2008 to 2021 'republican' 

Ike used the road or bowling alley analogy. He saw the gutters of both as the far-left and far-right and tried to stay in the lane.

He also said that if he was receiving complaints from both the left and the right that he was doing the job correctly.

[Maynard Delecto]

3 hours ago, son of a gun said:

Ideas shift over time

 

^^^slavery apologist^^^

[smltwnrckr]

8 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

Eisenhower was courted by both parties for the 1952 election - Ike wasn't far right or left 

Biggest rap against Ike was that he golfed a lot (until trump came along) ..........and Ike was also aided by the post WWII economic boom in the US, but overall there's not much Ike did that would be seen as 2008 to 2021 'republican' 

There were liberals and conservatives in both parties back then. They weren't as ideologically polarized as they are now.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

On 6/16/2021 at 12:50 PM, SJSUMFA2013 said:

Cults always end the same way. I’m looking forward to watching it happen.

Cults more often end in weird group sex (and for me to say it is weird...) than mass suicides.

 

[smltwnrckr]

3 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

The parties were true big tents back then. The GOP was like 3 different parties in one, and the Democratic Party was about 2 or 3 too.

Now, it's all just become homogenized extremism in both camps. There's no room for dissent in any party anymore.

Regional politics based on geographic needs were also as powerful if not more so than ideological politics. Like an east/west divide was as much of a thing as a right/left divide.

[FresnoFacts]

Regional political parties was one of the concerns Washington warned about in his farewell address.

"One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

[smltwnrckr]

23 minutes ago, FresnoFacts said:

Regional political parties was one of the concerns Washington warned about in his farewell address.

"One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

The union was smaller then, andbthere was also a clear north/south correlation between a specific region and a specific ideological issue. In a union as big as it is now, regional factions (not parties, but coalitions) are both inevitable and a good thing in a healthy, functioning republic. The problem is when the regional factions overlap with ideological factions. That's when shit gets real. 

[smltwnrckr]

59 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

Absolutely. I also think we'd be better suited moving back toward that sort of a divide as opposed to the blanket partisan one if we're going to continue to fight with one another.

I agree if it was a mix of regional and ideological... a complex patchwork. I fear if people continue to move and live only around their ideological similars and there becomes some clear, singular line dividing two factions.