It is not that there were not differences between the two parties. Rather that the differences were more nuanced but appeared larger only in the context of the times.Even now, the differences between the two parties is more apparent than real. Mostly being - interestingly - questions of style more than substance. There being, at the moment, a populist consensus in the country that has captured both parties. Thus it was a Republican President - Mr. Trump - who signed prison sentencing reform and that Democrats - seeing the fate of Senator Warren's presidential bid - who are running away from Medicare for all. (Even Senator Sanders will only go so far as saying that taxes will go up - he tantalizingly does not say by how much.) So long answer to short - and somewhat silly - question. Tell me the when and the where and I will tell you how America might be different. Indeed, there might not be an American had there not been a Republican there to end slavery and wage a civil war to preserve the Union. You pays your monies and you takes your chances.
I don’t know if they would even be a White House or President. Our government is mostly republican so it would be totally different.
@anonymous- I like how you make a very reasonable statement asking that everyone one day come together and realize were on the same side followed by the most divisive incendiary statement of bullshit ever that’s quite a contrast whoever you are
@Girther10 I like how you conflate Trumpism with Conservativism.If you ever want to talk about the vast differences between what the present administration does and classic conservatism, I'll gladly engage you.And I won't even have to use obscenities to make my point.Let me know.
You have me confused with someone who cares what do you think I do not you are a pink anon Andall I said concerned I said was you made a ridiculous hypocritical statement that’s all
I never said anything about Trump is him or conservatism I know they’re not the same so get a life
@Girther10 So actually making an argument using real factual information scares you a little, doesn't it. Bummer. Any time you want to start caring and defend yourself, I'll gladly have a conversation. In the meantime bury your head in your little "i don't care" patch of sand and hide.
He obliviously has social problems, can’t get women to like him, ignore him.
Oh you have said is only your very narrow minded opinion you cannot base any of that on facts you don’t like those facts do you and besides talk about who is hiding under where you are the anonymous one too much of a chickenshit to let your real identity show you want even more layers of anonymity which shows you have nothing to be proud of
@Asker- you don’t know jack about me or my social situation, pretendingbotherwise in your white knight rescue attempt is laughable. Two anons cowering under tons of anonymity must be pretty gratifying for such cowards.
You won't “gladly” discuss anything because you can’t even be who you really are, it’s just drive by insults where you don’t have to be accountable to anyone, not even yourself... 😅😂🤣
It’s a bit rich to say someone has “social problems” when you’re the one who’s afraid of being seen or discovered,, what a crock... lol
Big talk for a nobody... lol
And I don’t have to “defend” myself about anything. I haven’t said anything - yet. Just the obvious, about your initial statement, that has to be one of the most hypocritical statement possible, I too, would be like you, embarrassed af for having to back it up now. Wha5 a fraud. @OpinionOwner
Thanks for the mho!
No the UN, would have too many issues with that. It’s a western country and other countries wouldn’t be allies with us. It definitely would go on longer probably.
The Republicans ended slavery long before the un
Yeah, I’m saying it wouldn’t happen in modern western countries. America isn’t the only country that had slavery.
Wait what? Your aware that the literal purpose of the founding of the republican party was the ending of slavery right? That the first republican president in history was Abraham Lincoln who started a civil war with the slave owning democrats in his first term and finished it in his second term and ratified the 14th amendment that stated that no one could be legally descriminated against based upon their race and that non whites would have the legal right to vote? That was ALL republican. From 1871 to 1993 we have had nine civil rights acts. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was voted in by a republican majority, EVERY ONE. To date, not a single racist law has been voted in by republicans, every jim crow and segregationist law was voted in by democrats. I think you need to brush up on your history.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The reason we choose to know about history, is to avoid making the same mistakes today. That’s important to how you are paying attention to current events- it gives you more context, and ability to understand these current events better. Just my opinion..🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
@Account2- look at those who know very little about actual history and how messed up they are, like @Marriedwith2- on this very thread. He’s an example of someone who tries to keep up with current events, like you do, but because of his outright ignorance of history, or anything actually, he comes on here and embarrasses himself by letting everyone see that. The best part is, he doesn’t even know how dumb he really is, his IQ is equal to about that of a head of cabbage.. 😅😂🤣
@Girther10 That makes sense. I missed history in highschool and I don't remember any before that talking about the details of anything important, just basics the name date location. Besides I already found out that what they taught about the Indians was wrong/ left out.Do you maybe know where I could find information on history that isn't for kids and isn't biased towards the country it's talking about?
I’d say that you have in your hands an electronic device with potentially all information known to all human beings. Start there...
Child rapists? Wtf do you get that from?
Sounds like another farcical half baked rebuke of anything normal, or desirable. A ridiculous figment of the imagination of a dark and deeply disturbed mind...
Republicans came into existence to end slavery, that was their literal purpose and the first republican president in history, Abraham Lincoln, did just that. Since 1871 up until 1993 we have had nine civil rights acts, every single one of which was passed by a republican majority. To date not one racist law has been enacted by republicans, every single jim crow law, segregation, and slavery where all the product of democrats. The KKK was backed by democrats and was used to murder blacks and white republicans (a third of those killed). The confederate flag was the flag of the southern democrats not republicans, mass shootings do not occur from republicans (and they are also insanely rare). You are completely ignorant of reality.
@hellion- 👊🏻 paws for the cause
@hellionthesagereborn You're dead right about the original Republicans. Their winning the civil war was the reason they weren't often elected in southern states which were the racist ones. 90% of formerly confederate state politicians voted against the civil rights act, 90% of northern politicians voted for it - independent of party.However, racists have absolutely switched which party they support since then. Just ask any of the many white supremacists on here which party they support.
@hellionthesagereborn 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Once again history proves the right-wing is lying again... I'll leave this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
@goaded They won't look up the Southern Strategy or the nice link to the Cornerstone speech I sent them... facts aren't big to our dull-witted racist friends here... oh that's right. they're too cowardly to own up to their racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincolnwww.history.com/.../republican-party-foundedAlso what the hell does a racist confederate democrat spouting white supremacist views to support his claim that they had the right to own slaves have to do with republicans? That's pretty bat shit crazy on your part: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
@goaded And as usual you are wrong and you just never tire of being wrong. Their was no switch and you cannot prove their was a switch because again, through out the 150 years we have had nine civil rights acts all of which passed with republican majority, the last one being in 1993. You cannot say when the switch happened, you cannot explain how the entire nation just over night (or nearly so) switched parties (except for their views on race, the only thing that didn't switch), you cannot explain WHY they would have switched, and you cannot say WHO switched. Did Senator Goldwater switch? No. Did Senator Byrd switch? No. Nobody switched. If you cannot explain when, how, why, or who, you cannot claim it happened (especially when all evidence shows you are wrong (not that your going to figure this out because, well its you).
The cornerstone speech was given by a democrat who was part of the confederacy so your an idiot. The southern strategy never happened and provably so as their is no evidence of republicans changing their rhetoric to win the deep south, they never actually won the deep south and the only states in the south that they did win, where as surveys showed along with being more republican where also less racist. Their was no southern strategy your just not smart enough to figure these things out because they require self reflection, thinking for yourself, critical thinking in general, and not being a zealot.
@hellionthesagereborn I think I see your problem. You think I'm saying that the Republican party as a whole is racist, rather than just that racists these days prefer the Republican party (just as they previously preferred the Democratic party over the party that abolished slavery).It's not like the Republicans are turning away their votes, is it?Like I said, ask the white supremacists on here which party they prefer.As to the "nine civil rights acts", they passed with majorities of both parties. Since you're not going to be specific, I'll pick an example: the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991.Check out the Nays in the House vote - of the 38 of them, 33 were Republican. There were 381 Yea votes (13 not voting, 9 D, 4 R).http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1991/roll386.xmlIn the Senate, it was 93-5 (2 D's not voting), all five Nays were Republicans.www.senate.gov/.../roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm
@goaded No, you don't see nor do you think. I am not suggesting that in the slightest, I am saying that you cannot explain the switch in any way what so ever and as such its an idiotic argument that can be dismissed outright. Their was no switch, their was no southern strategy (as no one can point to any evidence of any kind that it occurred as again, Nixon lost the south and their is no ads or recording showing him using racism as a campaign strategy unlike with the democrats at the time who absolutely did those things and he lost the south and at absolute best this would be ONE person not an entire PARTY. Also that wouldn't explain the supposed "Switch" as the democrats would still be racist in this scenario so again, its moronically stupid on EVERY. SINGLE. LEVEL.). Your just wrong and your head is so far up your ass that you cannot see it because it would require you to actually ask questions and that frightens you to much to do so.
@goaded I have no idea what your links are referring to, if its the house then that is not congress that's the house, two voting against it in and of itself doesn't say a god damn thing my point was you claim racism yet their is no evidence of racism (because your an idiot) and they voted for all the civil rights acts, ALL OF THEM. Next your going to tell me it was democrats who passed the 14th amendment (because that was the terms of their surrender but like hell you'll admit to that because your a bigoted dumb ass). Further more you chose literally the most recent one, that's your evidence that republicans are racist because some didn't vote for the act but the overwhelming majority did but they are still racist? Again, not even sure if this is just the house as you claimed or congress but its still an idiotic argument either way. But on top of all of that, it was the amendment that was designed to LIMIT the conditions of what a person could sue a company over based upon supposed descrimination meaning it was democrats protecting big business by your own reasoning and republicans fighting them (IRONY!): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991
@goaded That's also why you chose that one occurrence because you know you don't have an argument and even with it you don't have an argument (because you didn't bother figuring out what it even was about unsurprisingly)! As for white supremacists, are you an idiot? The answer is yes, yes you are. The founder of the alt right and white supremacist/white nationalist Richard Spencer identifies as. . . a socialist you dumb ass! He hates conservatives, he has literally stated that his political leanigns are on the left (personally stated this) the only issue is that the left plays identity politics, if they just removed all other minorities from the equation he would, by his admission, be a democrat! God dammit why won't you actually think before you speak? Seriously what level of stupid do you have that you cannot put two and two together. I realize I'm speaking to a brick wall here (well that's not true, the brick wall is far more likely to actually think and consider the facts.), but still everything you say is wrong and its always wrong and it baffles me how you can keep going regardless of reality. Anyway its not worth speaking to you anymore (as you well know because I have to tell you this over and over again.).
@hellionthesagereborn OK, so you're just obviously wrong. Racists these days prefer the Republican party (just as they previously preferred the Democratic party over the party that abolished slavery); ask the white supremacists on here which party they prefer.Why don't you understand the links to the House and Senate voting totals? Is it too complicated for you that both parts of congress vote on the same thing? I picked the 1991 act because it was the one I found nearest 1993, feel free to give a link to the 1993 one, or any of the other seven, and we can look at the voting on them.Nixon's political advisor, in the New York Times: "The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans".Go read the whole thing, here: www.nytimes.com/.../phillips-southern.pdfIt's all about harnessing resentment against minorities and immigrants, other Americans.I said you were completely right about the origins of the Republican Party, and their abolition of slavery, but it's ridiculous to compare today's parties to their Civil War namesakes, they say a week is a long time in politics, 100 years is an eternity.Finally, Richard Spencer is a socialist in the same way the Republican party is the party of health care. He's only interested in the welfare of "the people", as long as "the people" are white and Christian; that's not socialist.
@goaded Yeah your an idiot piss off.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!