Split Stoves, Ovens, And Parties, Oh My. Split from The Race For 2024

[pood]

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

That’s nice,except that today’s Democrats are the heirs of Lincon and the original Republican Party, and today’s Republicans are the heirs of the Old Confederacy and the traitor Jeff Davis. If there is a new civil war it will be the Red States (Confederacy) seceding again, led now by Republicans (MAGAts) instead of Democrats.

If you say so.

This is not rocket science. Pretty much everyone who is educated knows this history. Sorry you don’t.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

That’s nice,except that today’s Democrats are the heirs of Lincon and the original Republican Party, and today’s Republicans are the heirs of the Old Confederacy and the traitor Jeff Davis. If there is a new civil war it will be the Red States (Confederacy) seceding again, led now by Republicans (MAGAts) instead of Democrats.

If you say so.

This is not rocket science. Pretty much everyone who is educated knows this history. Sorry you don’t.

Well, history says that it was Democrats who voted for secession. If you are going to try to teach history you should know that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Since the Democrats have apparently perfected the evidence-free rigging of elections, why are any Republicans even trying to run for office?

 

[pood]

Well, history says that it was Democrats who voted for secession. If you are going to try to teach history you should know that.

Wow, you really know anything about this history, do you? Is this like how said covid was a rhinovirus?

The two parties have ideologically flipped places since the Civil War. Shall I give you a history lesson on this? It goes all the way back to Henry Clay and the American System and even before that to Alexander Hamilton.

 

[TomC]

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

Don't you realize how ignorant that sounds in 2023, post "Southern Strategy" USA?
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The two parties have ideologically flipped places since the Civil War.

Sure they have.

Shall I give you a history lesson on this?

You lack qualifications.

It goes all the way back to Henry Clay and the American System and even before that to Alexander Hamilton.

Neither Clay nor Hamilton belonged to either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

Don't you realize how ignorant that sounds in 2023, post "Southern Strategy" USA?
Tom

Not nearly as ignorant as denying it.

 

[Copernicus]

...What disturbs me is watching fascist rhetoric get mainstream play and mass financing when there's very little evidence that a fascist state is what most Americans actually want. Politics is only a game until it stops being funny anymore. I think there's a very real chance that Trump will be re-elected in 2024, and despite everything that has happened, neither Party seems to be taking him seriously enough. Still. While the most of the American public has checked out altogether.

And it won't be because he is popular, but because of the ill-conceived electoral college, which only exists because of an 18th century compromise between American politicians that was designed to preserve the institution of slavery in the southern states. Given the extreme polarization in the US and the policies put in place to manipulate who can vote and which votes get counted, there is a possibility that not a single red state will turn blue in the 2024 election, and there is every possibility that one or more purple states that went blue last time will turn red: Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan... Basically, there are more purple states in danger of swinging red than blue. The Senate is likely to fall to the Republicans, and it is far from certain that the House will shift to Democrats. With the Supreme Court solidly in the hands of Republicans, prospects for the future of democracy in the US do not look good. Donald Trump dominating the Republican ticket may be the best hope that Democrats have of holding on to any real power. If he gets knocked out of play by his criminal trials, whoever replaces him will automatically get a boost by simply not being under indictment.

 

[TomC]

nearly as ignorant as denying it.

Nobody is denying that it happened, over a century ago. What we're laughing at is the deep partisanship of believing that it is still relevant. When everyone knows who's producing modern secessionist bullshit like Texit.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

nearly as ignorant as denying it.

Nobody is denying that it happened, over a century ago. What we're laughing at is the deep partisanship of believing that it is still relevant. When everyone knows who's producing modern secessionist bullshit like Texit.
Tom

Don't forget Calexit.

 

[pood]

The two parties have ideologically flipped places since the Civil War.

Sure they have.

Of course they have. Are really this ignorant of history?

Shall I give you a history lesson on this?

You lack qualifications.

On the contrary, I am very well qualified.

It goes all the way back to Henry Clay and the American System and even before that to Alexander Hamilton.

Neither Clay nor Hamilton belonged to either the Democratic or Republican parties.

The Republican Party emerged from the ruins of the Whig Party, which broke up on the shoals of what to do about slavery. Abraham Lincoln, one of the Republilcan Party’s founders, called Henry Clay, a Whig, his “beau ideal” of a statesman. Clay’s “American System” was an embryonic version of FDR’s New Deal. Lincoln pursued similar big-government stragegies during his Republican presidency, including the formation of land-grant colleges, the construction of the transcontinental railroad. and, of course, the prosecution of the Civil War and the destruction of slavery.

The Democratic Party of that time, by contrast, was the party of small, decentralized government, the primacy of states’ rights over Federal rights, and of course was pro-slavery — not just in defense of its existence in the south, but in its insistence that slavery must spread at least into the territories, if not into the north itself. The Dred Scott decision, as Lilncon pointed out, was paving the way, on the eve of the Civil War, for the nationalization of slavery.

So, let’s see: Republican Party of 1860 was pro-big government, skeptial of states’ rights, for progressive reforms, against the expansion of slavery into the territories and later, after the Civil War, it was pro-civil rights for blacks in the south — President Ulysses S. Grant, for example, another Republican, used federal power to battle the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the south during the 1870s.

The Democratic Party of 1860 was anti-big government, pro-states’ rights, pro-slavery, and against progressive reforms. It was dominated and controlled in the south by the planatation aristocracy, a forerunner of today’s oligarchs and plutocrats. We can see, then, that in every relevant respect, the Republican Party of today is the heir of the traitor Jerfferson Davis and the Confederates, and the Democratic Party of today is the heir not just of FDR but also of the Republican Abe Lincoln and of the Whig Henry Clay, who was Lincoln’s hero.

Now that I’ve schooled you, I’ll have to charge you. I will PM you my bill. You can pay via PayPal.

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

Don't you realize how ignorant that sounds in 2023, post "Southern Strategy" USA?
Tom

Not nearly as ignorant as denying it.

Denying what? The Southern Strategy, started by Nixon and amplified by later Republicans, was the final repudiation of the Republican Party of Lincoln, embracing in its place the Old Confederacy of Jeff Davis.

 

[Elixir]

Now that I’ve schooled you, I’ll have to charge you.

I’m sorry. The court denies your demand for compensation on the grounds that the defendant neither requested nor ingested the information - public information, btw - for which you are trying to charge.
OTOH- great synopsis!

 

[ZiprHead]

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

That’s nice,except that today’s Democrats are the heirs of Lincon and the original Republican Party, and today’s Republicans are the heirs of the Old Confederacy and the traitor Jeff Davis. If there is a new civil war it will be the Red States (Confederacy) seceding again, led now by Republicans (MAGAts) instead of Democrats.

He knows all this. He prefers to act like something that lives under a bridge instead of honest debate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The two parties have ideologically flipped places since the Civil War.

Sure they have.

Of course they have. Are really this ignorant of history?

Sure they have.

Shall I give you a history lesson on this?

You lack qualifications.

On the contrary, I am very well qualified.

If you say so.

It goes all the way back to Henry Clay and the American System and even before that to Alexander Hamilton.

Neither Clay nor Hamilton belonged to either the Democratic or Republican parties.

The Republican Party emerged from the ruins of the Whig Party, which broke up on the shoals of what to do about slavery.

The Democratic Party of that time, by contrast, was the party of small, decentralized government, the primacy of states’ rights over Federal rights, and of course was pro-slavery — not just in defense of its existence in the south, but in its insistence that slavery must spread at least into the territories, if not into the north itself. The Dred Scott decision, as Lilncon pointed out, was paving the way, on the eve of the Civil War, for the nationalization of slavery.
[/quote]

Oh, you suffer from the belief that Republicans are small government. No wonder you are so confused.

Now that I’ve schooled you, I’ll have to charge you. I will PM you my bill. You can pay via PayPal.

I believe that amount of "schooling" results in a negative payment due.

Sometimes I wish all these Confederate cowards would just take up arms again instead of hiding behind dishonest words. At least it would be a fair fight... and a quick one. Nazis are loud but they can't fight for crap and everyone knows it, even them.

It would be nice to see Democrat politicians vote to secede again.

Don't you realize how ignorant that sounds in 2023, post "Southern Strategy" USA?
Tom

Not nearly as ignorant as denying it.

Denying what? The Southern Strategy, started by Nixon and amplified by later Republicans, was the final repudiation of the Republican Party of Lincoln, embracing in its place the Old Confederacy of Jeff Davis.

If you say that one person's musings was a national strategy I guess it must be so.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now that I’ve schooled you, I’ll have to charge you.

I’m sorry. The court denies your demand for compensation on the grounds that the defendant neither requested nor ingested the information - public information, btw - for which you are trying to charge.
OTOH- great synopsis!

You would think that pile of BS is great. Oh, Elixir, you forgot this part.

Hey Elixir, you forgot to explain the gas ovens.

I have an electric oven. No need to explain RW morons’ fixations; it’s common knowledge that they are uninformed fascist halfwits.

The news article you posted discussed Republicans and gas stoves. You wrote about gas ovens, and even said "Yikes" for some undefined reason. They may have a fixation with stoves, but it appears you have the fixation with ovens.

I wonder how long Elixir will go before he explains why he thinks DeSantis is obsessed with gas OVENS. Not Stoves, Ovens. So far it has been over a month and he hasn't addressed it.

 

[southernhybrid]

This isn't a good sign. It appears as if every inditement is helping the autocratic idiot. And at least for now, Biden, who has accomplished an amazing amount during his time in office so far, after being faced with so many horrific challenges, is greatly under appreciated by his own party, in addition to being demonized by the other side. I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime. We're fucked.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...llegitimate-ticks-back-up-near-70/ar-AA1eJp4S

The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who believe that President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win was not legitimate has ticked back up, according to a new CNN pollfielded throughout July. All told, 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say Biden’s win was not legitimate, up from 63% earlier this year and through last fall, even as there is no evidence of election fraud that would have altered the outcome of the contest.

 

[pood]

To Jason:

You should learn how to use quote tags, if you learn nothing else.

I notice you completely evaded the substance of my critique, substituting for attempts at rebuttal whiny one-liners of the always persuasive “if you say so” variety. I take this as your concession that you are not competent to argue history or facts.

The only remark of substance you attempted, badly, was your remark that Republicans are not really for small government. In essence, this is true, NOW — because now, the party consists of craven MAGAts whose devotion is entirely to their cult leader, Marmalade Mussolini, and whatever he favors they favor. Through most of the 20th century it was a states’ rights, small-goverhment party; i.e., the successor to the Jeff Davis confederacy.

I believe you are a libertarian. That would explain a lot, I suppose. Libertarianism is second only to Objectivism in its fraudeulence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

True NOW? It has been true for the entire existence of the Republican Party. The only reason people falsely associate them with limited government is because under Wilson and FDR the Democratic Party went from limited government to even bigger government. After that it became a contest between big and bigger, growing the government by leaps and bounds or growing the government at a slower yet steady pace.

The Republican Party was founded on the principles of high import tariffs on foreign manufactured goods, to subsidize or out-right pay for construction projects such as roads, canals, and railroads to the benefit of domestic industries. It has always been the bankers party, from when it was founded to the present day. Definitely since Bush Jr. and with a strong influence before him the Republicans have been supporters of the biggest government program of them all - war.

 

[pood]

True NOW? It has been true for the entire existence of the Republican Party. The only reason people falsely associate them with limited government is because under Wilson and FDR the Democratic Party went from limited government to even bigger government. After that it became a contest between big and bigger, growing the government by leaps and bounds or growing the government at a slower yet steady pace.

The Republican Party was founded on the principles of high import tariffs on foreign manufactured goods, to subsidize or out-right pay for construction projects such as roads, canals, and railroads to the benefit of domestic industries. It has always been the bankers party, from when it was founded to the present day. Definitely since Bush Jr. and with a strong influence before him the Republicans have been supporters of the biggest government program of them all - war.

You’re comparing the “small government” philosophy of 20th century Republicanism with your imagined and unobtainable vision of what goverhment would look like under libertarianism — essentially, nonexistent. Fortunately, the chance that the libertarian party will become a major player in American life is also nonexistent.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What small government philosophy of 20th century Republicanism? They didn't have one even then. As you brushed aside, it is the difference between growing quickly or growing slowly. The only difference is Republicans prefer to "drive the speed limit".

If you are going to answer "taxes", because that is the only actual area where they tentatively approach the subject, the truth is they prefer indirect taxation to direct taxation so even that doesn't cover any variant of small government philosophy.

Harding and Coolidge did pay down the National Debt, that is true. On the other hand, Hoover, a Republican, created the policies that later on went on to become the New Deal. Having once done the math I found out that Hoover was a very pivotal president. In cumulative-per-term constant dollar deficits, he had greater deficits than every president before him, but less than every president after him. What that means is that Hoover started the trend that defined the United States from that point forward and is the parent of modern government, including "small government philosophy of 20th century Republicanism".

 

[pood]

You’re somehwat correct about the early Republican economic philosophy, particularly high tariffs, but here again the modern Republican Party, at least until Trump came along, has been for LOW tariffs — anotehr flip.

In reality, the Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose the spread of slavery into the territories (though it was not in favor of abolition — that only came about becase of the Civil War). To the extent that Lincoln thought much about economics, he concluded that labor was prior to capital and therefore superior to it, decidedly NOT a modern Republic idea, even under its current embodiement by MAGAts.