If Jefferson founded Republican Party in 1793, liberalism has no place in our history

[JWBooth]

Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.

of course if that was true Ted Cruz Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.

Feeling silly now?

Your unwarranted belief that you have bested anyone here is the only silliness on this day.
You are wrong, stupidly so, and I have wasted enough time on this nonsense. I bid you adieu.

 

[Agit8r]

yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.

Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.

yes and when the Republicans won the election of 1800 they called it the Second American Revolution. It established that the first revolution had not only been abut freedom from the British govt but freedom from all govt in general.

Sorry to interrupt this circle-jerk, but there was yet to be any history in this thread.
Quite the contrary, it is "conservatism" that has no historical basis prior to the 20th Century:

Crackpot Doom Scandal: "Conservatism"

 

[Picaro]

Except that the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party and adopted its primary points, a strong central government, national debt, doling out money from the treasury to favored corporate interests.

Yes. It was called 'the American system', and the key reasons for Lincoln's 'preserving the Union' scam; they needed the tariffs and land give-aways the South would be lop-sidedly paying to subsidize railroads and other Federal projects they wanted that the South wouldn't benefit from, the same as the tariffs implemented after the War of 1812.

Ironically, the New England states' politicians started a secessionist movement after the election of Jefferson, for the same reasons; at the time they thought they would be paying for the bulk of Federal spending while receiving few benefits for their taxes. The prosperity of the cotton kingdoms had reversed that tariff burden by the 1820's, if not earlier.

 

[gipper]

Modern Republicans are truly the party of Lincoln, centralised power, government.

of course if that was true Ted Cruz Rand Paul Wm Buckley Barry Goldwater Reagan Milton Friedman etcetc would not be or have been Republicans, they would have been Democrats.

Feeling silly now?

Today's R party is not that different from the D party. They both believe in big centralized government...and both want more power and wealth for themselves and their donors. The Constitution is meaningless to them, until they can twist it to meet their nefarious purposes.

Now there are a few pols in the R party that align with Jefferson's view of federalism. Problem is they are very very few...and they are demonized by all on the left, including most of the R party.

Individual liberty and limited government are quaint ideas to many Americans, because most have been duped by the leftist elite. The pols in both parties know this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Today's R party is not that different from the D party.

absurd of course!!


1) Republican cant always be conservative since they need to get elected and reelected which often require the middle and even some from the left.

2) and even when they are conservative they often don't act that way when they need votes from the middle and the party oppopsite to get reelected.

3) when they hold one office they don't hold the entire govt so even if they are conservative and don't need the middle or party opposite they still may not produce conservative govt.

4) they have proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments( all killed by liberals), shut down the govt numerous times, nominated Goldwater and Reagan, voted 32 times against Obamacare, voted against stimulus, and most have signed Grovers pledge to never raise taxes!

5) the job in Congress pays $175,000 so the second conservative libertarians can be elected they will appear. The Party is merely a reflection of who can be elected so it is never to be blamed,
the voters are to be blamed.

 

[Picaro]

1) Republican cant always be conservative since they need to get elected and reelected which often require the middle and even some from the left.

In other words, they're hacks whose word means nothing when it comes to their own skins.

2) and even when they are conservative they often don't act that way when they need votes from the middle and the party oppopsite to get reelected.

See above ...

3) when they hold one office they don't hold the entire govt so even if they are conservative and don't need the middle or party opposite they still may not produce conservative govt.

That's because they don't really have any 'conservative' principles to uphold.

4) they have proposed 30 Balanced Budget Amendments( all killed by liberals), shut down the govt numerous times, nominated Goldwater and Reagan, voted 32 times against Obamacare, voted against stimulus, and most have signed Grovers pledge to never raise taxes!

And in the meantime, they pile on pork for their own constituencies, and have no real objection to spending the hell out of Federal tax monies, backing corporate welfare, etc. Their 'balanced budget' nonsense doesn't last past the second they get a majority of Congress.

5) the job in Congress pays $175,000 so the second conservative libertarians can be elected they will appear. The Party is merely a reflection of who can be elected so it is never to be blamed,
the voters are to be blamed.

Lol yeah right ... and who decides who the voters get to vote for again? ...

 

[regent]

yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.

Indeed, once Madison began to realize the trending power-mongering of the Federalists, he abandoned that party.

yes and when the Republicans won the election of 1800 they called it the Second American Revolution. It established that the first revolution had not only been abut freedom from the British govt but freedom from all govt in general.

It wasn't freedom from all governments, just conservative governments. After all America had 13 liberal governments operating at the time, most with their own liberal Constitutions. Liberals were leery of establishing another central government fearing it would be like the other European governments, conservative.
In any case the convention was operating under the liberal ideas of the Age of Enlightenment and, with a liberal Bill of Rights promised, enough liberals voted to ratify the new liberal Constitution, and a new liberal nation was underway leading other people to establish liberal nations.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

After all America had 13 liberal governments operating at the time,

if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, and a new liberal nation was underway leading other people to establish liberal nations.

if liberal means very very very limited govt with only a few enumerated powers then you are right. Dont forget, our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the A bomb because they loved his very very unlimited govt. Never mind that he killed 65 million with his unlimited govt!!

 

[regent]

After all America had 13 liberal governments operating at the time,

if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?

The Articles created government with limited powers, too limited, and the framers dumped the Articles as unworkable. The framers then created a new document, the Constitution, with vast new powers, and that worked. The days of government with few powers didn't last long but it was a nice try and we learned, or some did. The bigger question is what is the purpose of government.

 

[emilynghiem]

Lefties think our founding was leftist because the Federalists won the constitutional debate. However, they ignore the fact that the Constitution prevented Federalist desires to expand the central authority into a fiscal-military, British-style monarchy.

yes and they also forget that the second Jefferson and Madison got wind of what the Federalists wanted they formed the Republican Party and crushed.

[MENTION=34008]EdwardBaiamonte[/MENTION]
the liberal voters I talk with don't even have this much history or knowledge.

Most I know live hand to mouth.
Few I talk with even understand the difference between city, state and federal govt.

Too many people today think whoever you elect can just vote "whatever they want" into law. And nobody can fight the govt so you get stuck with that.

This board was the first place I found this many people who believed in enforcing Constitutional principles directly. I'm usually the odd one out, especially among Democrats.

I think by starting with Constitutional principles, that is plenty of work to educate people on due process, checks and balances, consent of the governed, and equal protection of laws.

Most people don't get "due process," because they are used to judging and projecting punishment on people without giving them a chance to redress the accusations!

So if they do this in everyday life, of course, they have no concept of govt being required to resolve grievances instead of just issuing judgment and punishment based solely on belief.

That issue of "due process" and "consent of the governed" alone is a full time job
trying to cultivate respect for in relationships in order to set the standard by example.
If more people were taught conflict resolution and mediation, maybe the concept of self-govt would be more established
instead of overrun by politics that profit by making people dependent on Party instead of invoking Constitutional principles directly to check and reform govt.

If we can even establish equal respect for Constitutional principles, why not focus there and bypass all the blame from this party or that one. Why not recognize people's political beliefs like religions, and let each have their own; while agreeing to keep these biased agenda out of govt policy and process, and just stick to Constitutional points where we agree.

If people don't get the connection between people and govt by Constitutional democratic process, no amount of arguing about party history is going to matter. They will keep using party politics to oppose and bully whatever group they blame. History will not change that impression, once you or a group is pegged as the problem, it doesn't matter what the past is with that party, they only care about trying to outvote the people they are against NOW,
and they think the only way is to elect someone of the opposing party and let them do for them.

They have no concept of empowering people to enforce Constitutional principles directly.
If we are going to address this problem, I believe the whole party system needs to be called out as establishing political religions
that should be kept separate from govt instead of competing with each other to impose their own national religion on the public.

 

[emilynghiem]

After all America had 13 liberal governments operating at the time,

if liberal means very very very limited govt then you are right that they were liberal. And certainly the Articles of Confederation were liberal too in that they created a very very very limited govt. Isn't thinking fun?

The Articles created government with limited powers, too limited, and the framers dumped the Articles as unworkable. The framers then created a new document, the Constitution, with vast new powers, and that worked. The days of government with few powers didn't last long but it was a nice try and we learned, or some did. The bigger question is what is the purpose of government.

The purpose of government is to represent, protect and serve all the people of the nation, based on their consent.
The problem is where parties do not agree, and different things represent them,
then they fight over which platform is going to be pushed through govt.

Instead of that, why not keep separate agenda "out of govt" and develop that independently to govern just those populations that each party policy represents.

if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels. And the rest can be delegated out and supported by groups who AGREE, so there is no conflict and waste of resources fighting or competing; all resources can go directly into the programs that people/groups select.

I think that is the best way to clean up govt: stick to where we agree, and separate the rest to delegate to groups who agree to their own solutions and reforms for cleaning up.
I believe the parties can and should share responsibility for taking this on.
Given that is where people tend to collect in likeminded groups, who do want to serve as either community, businesses or public leaders,
it makes sense to delegate the responsibility to parties for their own agenda, and use their structures and democratic representation to manage their own members and resources.

This would take huge burdens off govt, end the need for political conflict since power and responsibility would be shared,
and reward citizens and groups for participating in reforms and creating the most cost-effective sustainable solutions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.

great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!

 

[regent]

if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.

great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!

Can't blame you for not wanting to get into the purpose of government, so switch to Stalin and the bomb.

 

[emilynghiem]

if we keep federal govt limited to just the policies and programs that ALL taxpayers agree to fund, then it would stay at manageable levels.

great idea except liberals are naturally violent; they want the majority to force the minority at the point of a gun to do what they want. Freedom, the very purpose of our country means nothing to them, It is no surprise they spied for stalin and gave him the bomb!

Dear [MENTION=34008]EdwardBaiamonte[/MENTION]:

Where I am guessing the combativeness and defensiveness is coming from,
for my liberal Democrat friends who do not feel "equally empowered" and able to "invoke" authority directly from the laws and Constitution as Conservatives and Christians,
they become dependent on Party to smash, block, oppose or outvote whatever they fear the opposing party is doing, in order to have any control or representation.

I THOUGHT, at first, this could be changed by educating and empowering people to invoke the authority of law directly. But in the meantime the political machine is too powerful, so more people give in and just let the politicians use the party to steamroll whatever they can.

And you know who takes control of the votes and parties, the worst candidates who bypass consent of constituents and take shortcuts to push media image and campaigns to win.

I am searching other sources for ANYONE who is ready to declare these parties as political religions, call them out for what they are, and quit playing victim and bully back and forth.

Most people are too caught up in the game.

Why can't we step back and recognize that even if the Democrat Party does push for "majority rule" to impose agenda, that's still a Political Religion that others don't believe in, and should NOT be established through law or govt, any more than any other religion!

So what does it take to get everyone on the same page, to come to this same realization?
That this game of pushing one party's BELIEFS is already abuse of law to begin with.

Why can't we just recognize it for what it is, and quit playing like it's okay
to push one party over another by majority rule and just have it out?

If Hindus and Muslims competed with each other to push a policy on the rest of the nation, we'd say no, keep your agenda private, separate from Govt which is under the Constitution.

So why not tell both Parties to keep their agenda separate, and only let God represent where all people and parties agree? Why not stand for the Constitution and quit this mess?

 

[Agit8r]

Why can't we step back and recognize that even if the Democrat Party does push for "majority rule" to impose agenda, that's still a Political Religion that others don't believe in, and should NOT be established through law or govt, any more than any other religion!

UnAmerican much?

"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
-- James Madison; from Federalist #39

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

So why not tell both Parties to keep their agenda separate, and only let God represent where all people and parties agree? Why not stand for the Constitution and quit this mess?

dear, the Republican party does stand for the Constitution. It was the liberals who spied for Stalin. Have you read about this?

 

[Dante]

How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?

Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?

Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through

sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"

 

[Dante]

How many of these lame Jefferson was a Republican threads has Eddie started now?

Been a while but good to see him back to his old self trying to sneak the same crap through

sadly a liberal can call names but lacks the IQ to say why it is "crap"

have you ever debated anyone one-on-one and had people who were watching ad listening just walk away from you?