republican party

[other one]

[LadyKay]

That was then. And this is now. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

43 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

That was then. And this is now. 

I am not the world's biggest fan of the Republican party, in fact, I don't know of a party that I care to endorse. However, with regards to slavery, not only is that history, but the history of the Republican party, has been consistent in regards to racism in general, having a much better track record than it's major competitor, the Democrat party. This is especially true in the case of civil rights and other issues troubling our black citizens.

The democrats, educational system, and the mainstream media have been complicit in trying to distort and cover up the true history in these matters. Their success is sort of a national shame in my mind, that our citizens have been so successfully duped. It is bizarre to me that the Democrat party is often seen as the good guys, on matters regarding race.

That was then, and more so now!

Do a search on YouTube for a good succinct history of the facts search for "The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party" Carol Swain is a former Democrat, and is a former professor of political science at Vanderbilt University

also, search on YouTube for "dinesh d'souza racism" will also turn up a lot of interesting info, especially regarding the side effects that Democrat policies and leadership have had in modern times.

[other one]

"Hillary's America" that dinesh d'souza made is a history of the Democratic party....   very eye opening.

[LadyKay]

My point being is that it dose not matter to me what a political party was or did or did not do in the 1800's.  What matters to me is what they are now or what they are doing now. I do not support or  support a political party based on what they were when they were first form.   

 

With that said. I have never been all for 100% never wavering support for one side. I give my support to which ever party I think is doing what I think should be done. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by LadyKay

[LadyKay]

I forgot to add that the Republican lost me when they allowed themselves to be hoodwink by Trump.  It is no longer the Republican party. It is the Trump party.  Though there are a few good Republicans that do see that this has happen. 

[Willa]

It is best to vote for the platform that opposes the slaughter of innocent babies, upholds our constitution and bill of rights including our Judeo/Christian religious freedom and values, and which looks out for the best interests and safety of our nation.  

Which party's platform comes closest to that ideal?

Which presidents have surrounded themselves with Christian advisors and have chosen officials that support those ideals?

Which party engages in treaties and laws that jeopardize those values?

Which parties oppose those ideals and would establish a different form of government?

Which presidents considered our constitution "deeply flawed" and surrounded themselves with advisors that strongly opposed the above ideals.  

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 hours ago, LadyKay said:

My point being is that it dose not matter to me what a political party was or did or did not do in the 1800's.  What matters to me is what they are now or what they are doing now. I do not support or  support a political party based on what they were when they were first form.   

 

With that said. I have never been all for 100% never wavering support for one side. I give my support to which ever party I think is doing what I think should be done. 

I totally agree with what you said, and that is why I responded as I did to what you said. The Democrat party was the racist party in the 1800s. From then until present day, it is still the party of racism. However it has changed. In the 1800s, the Democrat party was honest about it. The modern Democrat party is racist still, while denying that they are. To exaggerate the point I am making, consider the following theoretical scenarios:

1. Man murders another man. The evidence is there, and when confronted says: "Yeah, I did it. So what he deserved it!"

2. Man murders another man. The evidence is there, and when confronted says: "Well, I may or may not have done it, but I have changed. You know this other guy over here, he really did it, you should blame him, he is the real murderer, yeah, that's it!"

Which of these two guys is better?

Man number 1 is a murderer, and he confesses to his crime, and is not ashamed of it, doesn't really see it as a crime, but as justice.

Man number 2, is a murder, he denies his crime, but sees murder as evil, and tries to put the blame on someone else.

By analogy, man 1 is the democrat party as it existed when the Republican party was forming. Man 2 is the Democrat party as it exists in our time.

So, like you, I do not support or reject a party, based on it's past. I do however reject one party, because it's policies are wrong headed, abusive, and counter productive. I do not like the fact that it derives it's power, by pitting groups of people against each other, it is the party of divisiveness. I do not support that party, because it promises (and does not deliver) to take money from people who for the most part derived their wealth or material possessions through legitimate means and redistribute that money to people in need, whether or not they deserve it. If it was anything but a government, we would call that theft. Robin Hood of fable, may have been a hero to the down trodden, but he was still a thief. 

We do not call taxation thievery, because government defines it into legitimacy. I think that there are needy people. I think those who are well off, have a moral obligation to help. However, I believe that such help, should be voluntary, not coerced by a government that punishes people who do not choose to help.

Our (U.S.) government, was never intended to take money from people and give it to others. That was not it's purpose, nor was it allowed as a power of government under our constitution. If government has a role to play here, perhaps it should get out to the way of people who want to create wealth and well being, by encouraging policies that lead to economic development, abundance of inexpensive necessities, and an educated public with actual needed skills.

It would be good also, to have in place policies that encourage voluntary charity, not coerced forfeiture of property, from which the government drains off 72 percent of the funds through inefficiency before the funds have a chance to reach the intended benefactors. U.S. government charity, is 28% efficient. If I were in charge, I would want to investigate any institution that claims to be a charity, when so little of the money collected goes to help people. My personal standard for considering charitable organizations, tends to be above 90% efficiency. 

When you said

Quote

With that said. I have never been all for 100% never wavering support for one side. I give my support to which ever party I think is doing what I think should be done. 

I agree there also. The problem I have, is that there is no party that does or is doing what I think should be done. I am afraid I look at that with a bit of practical skepticism, where I am always forced to choose the lessor electable evil, or abstain from voting.

 

 

 

 

[Takoda]

The corruption of the Republican Party in the Trump era seemed to set in with breathtaking speed. In fact, it took more than a half century to reach the point where faced with a choice between democracy and power, the party chose the latter. Its leaders don’t see a dilemma—democratic principles turn out to be disposable tools, sometimes useful, sometimes inconvenient. The higher cause is conservatism, but the highest is power. After Wisconsin Democrats swept statewide offices last month, Robin Vos, speaker of the assembly, explained why Republicans would have to get rid of the old rules: “We are going to have a very liberal governor who is going to enact policies that are in direct contrast to what many of us believe in.”

Complete article at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/how-did-republican-party-get-so-corrupt/578095/

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, LadyKay said:

I forgot to add that the Republican lost me when they allowed themselves to be hoodwink by Trump.  It is no longer the Republican party. It is the Trump party.  Though there are a few good Republicans that do see that this has happen. 

That is an interesting comment. I see it a bit differently. The Republican party, especially since the early 90s, subsequent to the contract with America, has been the hoodwinkers. They promised to cut taxes, they failed, it appears they did not really even try. Trump, ironically, promised and delivered.

Similarly the Republican party promised to end "Obamacare". They actually had the ability to do so, but did not. That was a large part of why they were elected, that, and things like insuring freedom of religion, gun rights, freedom of speech, and other fundamentals. The party not only failed at these things, and broke promises, they actually increased federal spending - a lot!

So, what we have here really, is that the Republican politicians systematically lied, deceived, failed etc. They were deserving to lose power, but where were the voters to turn? As bad as the Republican party was, the Democrat party was even worse!

Now, I need to make distinctions here, I made them really so far, but I was not clear or did not emphasize the distinctions.

Where I have been critical of the Democrat party, I was critical of the party, not the voters. The voters are not to blame, except for the fact that they voted those in the party, into power, and keep them there.

Similarly, most of my criticism of the Republican party is about the party, those in power, not the Republican voters.

Again, like Democrat voters, it is voters who get some of the blame, for voting in and keeping people in power who deserve not to be. The Republican voters put Trump into office. The Republican party opposed and still does oppose to a large degree, Donald Trump.

The Democrat party actively lied to people - demonstrably so, along with the complicit media in demonizing Trump. He is a lot of things, and certainly not all of them admirable. I would not vote for him as president, if I were given a choice of a better man, who could actually be elected, we were offered no such choice. I voted for Trump. simply because I believed he would beat Hillary. That is all I did, I voted against Hillary, a person that I consider to be extremely dangerous, extremely unsuited for political office, not just POTUS, I would not vote for her to be dog catcher. Seriously, I cannot think of anything I believe she would be a good choice for.

Trump was elected, because he was able to benefit from the failures to deliver and the ineptitude of most powerful Republicans in office. The good old boy network in the Republican party was so entrenched and so obviously not interested in advancing the values of the voters who put them into power, that Trump was able to break there stronghold. He looked into the dissatisfaction of the Republican base and appealed to them with border control, anti big government, taxation, Obamacare, and phrases like "drain the swamp", "crooked Hillary"  etc.

Everyone in power, now had a target on their backs. It resonated with people, still does, and he made it into power. He went from a rich (not usually seen as a positive trait) outsider, who was seen as un-electable, to become the president.

He still has a lot of flaws, but he has accomplished a lot of what he said he would do, and still seems to be working on things that he has so far, failed to deliver on.

On the other hand, where has the Democrat party, the media etc. been since the election? They do not seem to be offering much in the way of better idea, they are just mostly about how to impeach Trump, lol, and without any basis for it. They spent a lot of time and money, making sure we all know that Trump and Russia were in collusion, but produced no evidence to that effect. They are still focused on that. In spite of all the time, expense and attention to convince Americans that Trump is guilty, less that 40% of us, think there is evidence that he is. Probably all of those (or a huge majority) are Democrats. 

Is this strategy going to work for them in 2020? So far, it does not look like it. What are the Democrats putting forward? New, young stars  like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Are we kidding here, that is suppose to help their cause? Pathetic!

Meanwhile, Trump tweets his obnoxious comments, and his opponents, because of their egos, cannot help but respond, and make controversy. Surely they are smart enough to know that he is playing them, getting them to give him free publicity! Whatever else it is, politics have not been this entertaining since Bill Clinton!