"The Moral Collapse of the Republican Party"

[Revoltingest]

The Republican Party during that time was the major party fighting for rights for black people. It was Abe Lincoln's party, for example.

It also supported the time share approach to slavery (ie, the draft).
These days, they favor a voluntary military, so perhaps they're now more moral than before.
It all depends upon what one looks at.
To make a case for moral decline would comparing a range of issues over time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It also supported the time share approach to slavery (ie, the draft).
These days, they favor a voluntary military, so perhaps they're now more moral than before.
It all depends upon what one looks at.
To make a case for moral decline would comparing a range of issues over time.

You really think the draft is more immoral than chattel slavery?!

 

[Revoltingest]

You really think the draft is more immoral than chattel slavery?!

I'm not saying anything of the sort.
I cited one issue on which the Pubs have become more moral (by my standards).
But you'll note that the Pubs still oppose slavery, so there's no change in policy there.
So it doesn't indicate moral decline.

Looking at the larger picture, it's a long period between Lincoln's day & the present.
There have been many moral ups & downs.
Consider prohibition.....they once favored it, but now they don't.
This is a moral improvement.
Complex, eh?

So if one claims moral decline, then from which time to the present can be supported?
It should be more than the shallow claim of the linked article in the OP.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In response to one post:

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama on Friday rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, ending the political fight over the Canada-to-Texas project that has gone on for much of his presidency... -- http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/

It still boggles my mind that the fact eminent domain would have been severely abused and misused for Keystone is rarely brought up. Privately owned property would have been taken from one private party and given to another private party for private profit. But how this Capitalist society wasn't rallying behind that point alone boggles me.

 

[Revoltingest]

It still boggles my mind that the fact eminent domain would have been severely abused and misused for Keystone is rarely brought up. Privately owned property would have been taken from one private party and given to another private party for private profit. But how this Capitalist society wasn't rallying behind that point alone boggles me.

There actually has been strong objection, but I've seen it only in libertarian circles.
The legal basis for taking from one to give to another is this USSC decision.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#Dissenting_opinions
Tis interesting that the more 'liberal' justices favored this.
I like Thomas's dissent the most.....
"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not."

 

[metis]

It still boggles my mind that the fact eminent domain would have been severely abused and misused for Keystone is rarely brought up. Privately owned property would have been taken from one private party and given to another private party for private profit. But how this Capitalist society wasn't rallying behind that point alone boggles me.

Yep, and the environmental risks were and are very much at stake, plus the fact that the oil companies wouldn't go along with a proposal put forth by this administration to build refineries in the northern states. No, the companies want the oil mostly for export, which of course lines their pockets with money-- lots of it-- but does us little good.

 

[Acim]

Here's a couple of excerpts from Paul D. Miller, who teaches public policy at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a research fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He previously served on the National Security Council Staff from 2007 through 2009:

What is baffling is that the strategic calculus is so obvious, yet the entire party is getting it so massively wrong. That they are getting it so wrong is evidence that they are wholly driven by short-sighted, tactical partisan interests. They want the Republican Party to win and they want to be reelected. This isn’t a shocking insight; it is exactly what elected politicians do.

But what surprises me is that they want the Republican Party to win no matter what the party stands for, even if the party flirts with white supremacy and proto-fascism. I held out the hope—now, I see, hopelessly deluded and naïve—that politicians understood that there is a line you don’t cross; there comes a point at which principle really does come before party; that the good of the nation should come before partisanship; and that when your party starts to go off the deep end, you jump ship...

But fourth, consider what you’re trying to believe: either Trump was faking his bombast, xenophobia, and illiberalism during the primary, in which case you have to ask: Why would a candidate believe it is to his advantage to pretend to be an American Mussolini? Or the alternative: Trump was genuine then and faking it now, in which case you’re openly rooting for Trump to trick his way into the presidency by lying about his contempt for the norms of democracy...

The entire article can be found here: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/05/the-moral-collapse-of-the-republican-party/

Comments?

To me, all this crap attributed to Trump is debatable. I've had the debates on this forum. I won't continue to be shy about such debates.

I 'jumped ship' from the Republican party a good 20 years ago, because I decided to put principles before party. I've remained independent since then, and lean to the right. I have not voted for a Pub POTUS in this millennium.

Calling Trump racist thus far shows up to me like people don't know what actual racism is. Same goes with xenophobia, or pretty much all emotionally charged attacks against him. All these are designed to try and swing independent voters. Pubs will likely vote for Pubs and Dems will likely vote for Dems. Anything negative said about their candidates will be brushed aside, likely disregarded almost based entirely on the source making such assertions. Anything negative said about opposing candidate(s) will be treated as gospel. Independents sit somewhere in the middle and many of us lean one way or the others, but aren't firmly entrenched in the BS partisanship that comes up every other minute of every single day.

To me, as independent, the Pub party is evolving. I get that from anti-Pub perspective it has to be framed as devolving to maintain anti-Pub stripes. I find that easy to ignore because it is clearly partisan BS. I also see the Dem party evolving, and on very similar trajectory as Pubs, but taking longer to get there. Probably will be sped up if Hillary wins POTUS in 2016, though could conceivably slow down if Hillary turns out to be what many establishment Pubs say is 'an okay leader.' Dems, of course, will hang onto notion that she is (potentially) okay regardless of what she does. But if she is mostly middle, then, I see further splintering of Dem party. If she is way left, I see the trajectory speeding up. In 2018, there would conceivably be many Dem candidates running for Congress that will throw her under the bus for any hope of getting elected in states that are purple or blue. Pubs (of the establishment kind) will obviously despise her. Progressive types will debate forever on whether or not she went far enough on any possible decision. Everyone else will say she went too far.

For political fodder, it certainly benefits the anti-Pub position to think the Pub party will one day, soon be extinct. IMO, that will spell the end to the Dem party as well. There's simply no way that the remaining 70% of the U.S. population will have enough people who suddenly think a one-party government makes sense, especially if it is visibly splintering. It would have to come as close to the middle as it can, and possibly a little to the right, it it were to survive as a one party solution for America going forward. But chances would be very good that if somehow, magically, the Pubs did fold that the Dems would (collectively) think that far left politics are how that came about, and more of that is beneficial to the country, as way of governing. To me, that would guarantee the demise of the Dem party. No later than 2024 would that be realized.

Currently, I don't think anyone is reliable enough to accurately note, or predict, what the Pub party is evolving to. Here in election season any claims are going to be hyped up and essentially unreasonable in what they assert. Be that progressive/liberal assertions or Trump-like assertions. It's all likely far off base, and likely just gamesmanship in a national election.

3+ months ago, I wouldn't have predicted the Dems (I know) would be this visibly bent out of shape over the state of the Dem party. It is light years behind where the Pub party is currently. But it really does remind me of Pub party circa 2000. While that took 16 years to get to this point, because it did occur (already), I don't see the Dem demise taking so long. 4 years would be too soon, 8 years sounds about right, 12 years is a bit long. I don't expect, even for a second, for die-hard Dem who is convinced Hillary is best choice to understand what I'm purporting, and do expect them to downplay or brush off what I'm getting across. In some ways, I hope they're right. But unless such a person is actively arguing for Dems to come as close to the middle as humanly possible (which I don't see occurring), then I, as independent, can easily wait another 4 to 12 years for the demise to become more visible. IMO, it's already fairly visible, but probably less so if you want Hillary to win, no matter what her election takes, and no matter what she might to do the party (suddenly Dems could be the supreme war hawks in the room).

Of the Dems I know, at least half of them are moving toward Green Party as viable vote in 2016, some are still going to vote for Bernie in general, and I imagine the rest (of that half) will just not vote. The other half, either firmly supported Hillary 2 years go and that has not wavered, or they favored the Bern and rather vote Hillary than whatever possible alternative to that exists. I think the latter are primed to become independents as soon as 2020, but probably not by 2018.

If Hillary were to get a second term (who knows if she'll even get 1), I think it'll possibly be 20 to at very most 30% of the population backs her type of politics, while 60% at least and up to 80% do not. If I were Dem, I'd really really really want for Pubs to survive as something that is done evolving, by 2024, to have any chance of Dems winning in 2024. The good news is that a year from now, everything I've written about in this post will show up as hype. But 2 years from now, not so much. 4 years from now, I think it'll come off as spot on UNLESS Trump wins in 2016. Then all bets are off.

 

[Mindmaster]

In response to one post:

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama on Friday rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, ending the political fight over the Canada-to-Texas project that has gone on for much of his presidency... -- http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/

Wow, that's just cherry picking away. Yes, he gave up because it wasn't gonna happen. So, he spun it into some environmental yadda because saving the environment from "oil" means forcing people to truck it, train it, or boat it in instead of using the clean-air pipeline to do the same. Just cutting off his nose to spite his face, not logical at all. The other methods of moving it cause way more pollution than a pipeline and they STILL will have to move it.

 

[Mindmaster]

It still boggles my mind that the fact eminent domain would have been severely abused and misused for Keystone is rarely brought up. Privately owned property would have been taken from one private party and given to another private party for private profit. But how this Capitalist society wasn't rallying behind that point alone boggles me.

This is incorrect for the most part, I am sure some property may have to be claimed but usually what happens for a pipeline is an easement for the pathway of said pipe. Most of these pipelines just run the length of major thoroughfares, and no one even knows they are there other than the signs placed alongside the road. It didn't save the environment, anyone's home, or any other such nonsense all shutting it down did was cost a crap load of jobs that we really could have used.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is incorrect for the most part, I am sure some property may have to be claimed but usually what happens for a pipeline is an easement for the pathway of said pipe. Most of these pipelines just run the length of major thoroughfares, and no one even knows they are there other than the signs placed alongside the road. It didn't save the environment, anyone's home, or any other such nonsense all shutting it down did was cost a crap load of jobs that we really could have used.

No, it's correct.
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/02/17/keystone-pipeline-sparks-property-rights-backlash/

A property rights coalition tracking the condemnation proceedings has uncovered at least 89 land condemnation lawsuits involving TransCanada in 17 counties from the Red River to the Gulf Coast — cases that could test the limits of a private company's power to condemn property.

One of the landowners, Lamar County farmer Julia Trigg Crawford, will face off with the pipeline giant on Friday morning at a court hearing in Paris, Texas. Crawford got a rare restraining order halting any further encroachment on her land until questions surrounding TransCanada's right to condemn her property for the pipeline can be resolved.

“I’m just an angry steward of the land,” Crawford said. “A foreign-owned, for-profit, nonpermitted pipeline has taken a Texan’s land. Doesn’t sound right, does it?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/keys...ome-ranchers/2012/07/27/gJQAqlQgDX_story.html

A property rights coalition tracking the condemnation proceedings has uncovered at least 89 land condemnation lawsuits involving TransCanada in 17 counties from the Red River to the Gulf Coast — cases that could test the limits of a private company's power to condemn property.

One of the landowners, Lamar County farmer Julia Trigg Crawford, will face off with the pipeline giant on Friday morning at a court hearing in Paris, Texas. Crawford got a rare restraining order halting any further encroachment on her land until questions surrounding TransCanada's right to condemn her property for the pipeline can be resolved.

“I’m just an angry steward of the land,” Crawford said. “A foreign-owned, for-profit, nonpermitted pipeline has taken a Texan’s land. Doesn’t sound right, does it?”
...
But Harter, like thousands of other landowners, doesn’t have much choice. Two days earlier, Harter had been in court trying to stop TransCanada, which had asked a judge to let it exercise eminent domain and force Harter to give it access to his land.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/#4931d05c64ec

The judge ruled that the law violated the state constitution, and she issued an injunction blocking the Governor’s office from taking any action on the Governor’s January 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route, which would include allowing land to be acquired through eminent domain (Court Documents).
...
TransCanada has used eminent domain on another part of the pipeline route (NYTimes). In a 2012 ruling, Texas Judge Bill Harris HRS -0.21% of Lamar County upheld TransCanada’s takeover by eminent domain of a strip of land across Julia Trigg Crawford’s pasture in Paris, Texas to build part of its Keystone XL pipeline. The ruling was delivered in a 15-word text message sent from the Judge’s iPhone, demonstrating the seriousness with which the Judge handled such a constitutionally-charged case. Not sure if that ruling is a first in judicial history, but I guess it was better than a Tweet.

TransCanada is indeed grasping at the concept of eminent domain, despite the fact the privately owned land they have been trying to seize will not be used for public use, but rather for private profits.

 

[metis]

To me, all this crap attributed to Trump is debatable. I've had the debates on this forum. I won't continue to be shy about such debates.

I 'jumped ship' from the Republican party a good 20 years ago, because I decided to put principles before party. I've remained independent since then, and lean to the right. I have not voted for a Pub POTUS in this millennium.

Calling Trump racist thus far shows up to me like people don't know what actual racism is. Same goes with xenophobia, or pretty much all emotionally charged attacks against him. All these are designed to try and swing independent voters. Pubs will likely vote for Pubs and Dems will likely vote for Dems. Anything negative said about their candidates will be brushed aside, likely disregarded almost based entirely on the source making such assertions. Anything negative said about opposing candidate(s) will be treated as gospel. Independents sit somewhere in the middle and many of us lean one way or the others, but aren't firmly entrenched in the BS partisanship that comes up every other minute of every single day.

To me, as independent, the Pub party is evolving. I get that from anti-Pub perspective it has to be framed as devolving to maintain anti-Pub stripes. I find that easy to ignore because it is clearly partisan BS. I also see the Dem party evolving, and on very similar trajectory as Pubs, but taking longer to get there. Probably will be sped up if Hillary wins POTUS in 2016, though could conceivably slow down if Hillary turns out to be what many establishment Pubs say is 'an okay leader.' Dems, of course, will hang onto notion that she is (potentially) okay regardless of what she does. But if she is mostly middle, then, I see further splintering of Dem party. If she is way left, I see the trajectory speeding up. In 2018, there would conceivably be many Dem candidates running for Congress that will throw her under the bus for any hope of getting elected in states that are purple or blue. Pubs (of the establishment kind) will obviously despise her. Progressive types will debate forever on whether or not she went far enough on any possible decision. Everyone else will say she went too far.

For political fodder, it certainly benefits the anti-Pub position to think the Pub party will one day, soon be extinct. IMO, that will spell the end to the Dem party as well. There's simply no way that the remaining 70% of the U.S. population will have enough people who suddenly think a one-party government makes sense, especially if it is visibly splintering. It would have to come as close to the middle as it can, and possibly a little to the right, it it were to survive as a one party solution for America going forward. But chances would be very good that if somehow, magically, the Pubs did fold that the Dems would (collectively) think that far left politics are how that came about, and more of that is beneficial to the country, as way of governing. To me, that would guarantee the demise of the Dem party. No later than 2024 would that be realized.

Currently, I don't think anyone is reliable enough to accurately note, or predict, what the Pub party is evolving to. Here in election season any claims are going to be hyped up and essentially unreasonable in what they assert. Be that progressive/liberal assertions or Trump-like assertions. It's all likely far off base, and likely just gamesmanship in a national election.

3+ months ago, I wouldn't have predicted the Dems (I know) would be this visibly bent out of shape over the state of the Dem party. It is light years behind where the Pub party is currently. But it really does remind me of Pub party circa 2000. While that took 16 years to get to this point, because it did occur (already), I don't see the Dem demise taking so long. 4 years would be too soon, 8 years sounds about right, 12 years is a bit long. I don't expect, even for a second, for die-hard Dem who is convinced Hillary is best choice to understand what I'm purporting, and do expect them to downplay or brush off what I'm getting across. In some ways, I hope they're right. But unless such a person is actively arguing for Dems to come as close to the middle as humanly possible (which I don't see occurring), then I, as independent, can easily wait another 4 to 12 years for the demise to become more visible. IMO, it's already fairly visible, but probably less so if you want Hillary to win, no matter what her election takes, and no matter what she might to do the party (suddenly Dems could be the supreme war hawks in the room).

Of the Dems I know, at least half of them are moving toward Green Party as viable vote in 2016, some are still going to vote for Bernie in general, and I imagine the rest (of that half) will just not vote. The other half, either firmly supported Hillary 2 years go and that has not wavered, or they favored the Bern and rather vote Hillary than whatever possible alternative to that exists. I think the latter are primed to become independents as soon as 2020, but probably not by 2018.

If Hillary were to get a second term (who knows if she'll even get 1), I think it'll possibly be 20 to at very most 30% of the population backs her type of politics, while 60% at least and up to 80% do not. If I were Dem, I'd really really really want for Pubs to survive as something that is done evolving, by 2024, to have any chance of Dems winning in 2024. The good news is that a year from now, everything I've written about in this post will show up as hype. But 2 years from now, not so much. 4 years from now, I think it'll come off as spot on UNLESS Trump wins in 2016. Then all bets are off.

I'm gonna see how the polls here in Michigan go come late October before making a final choice. If it's close, I'll go for Hillary because there's no way in hell I'd ever vote for someone like Trump. OTOH, if it looks like a Hillary win here, I'll go third party or not vote for president. I've never been fond of Hillary, nor Bill, as I believe they're all too opportunistic plus willing to say whatever makes them look better.

Even though I come off as a solid Dem, the reality is that I have on many occasions voted differently, plus I grew up in a solidly Republican family and went in their direction at first. What soured me on the party originally was the rampant racism that I experienced with the vast majority of Republicans that I knew, and there's still plenty of that around, let me tell ya. You may not want to call it "racism", but I certainly do when I hear what has too often been said and by whom, both past and present.

I do cater to bigotry, whether it be racial, nationality-wise, or religious, and "the Donald" spouts bigotry much of the time. We simply cannot allow such a person to be our leader. I've studied the Holocaust here, in Poland, and in Israel, and it's words that started that process and escalated from there. Read some English translations of Der Sturmer if you think I'm exaggerating.

Words matter, and Trump's words exude moral depravity-- period.

 

[Mindmaster]

No, it's correct.
https://www.texastribune.org/2012/02/17/keystone-pipeline-sparks-property-rights-backlash/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/keys...ome-ranchers/2012/07/27/gJQAqlQgDX_story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/#4931d05c64ec

TransCanada is indeed grasping at the concept of eminent domain, despite the fact the privately owned land they have been trying to seize will not be used for public use, but rather for private profits.

You do realize the pipe is three feet wide right? http://www.keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

I'm sure there are some land grabs required in some circumstances, but I can't imagine it being required for the bulk of it. Anyway, moving people is fine if the job creation and the environmental impact improve. It's not like people "take" your home away in such a proceeding, you are paid whatever the market value is and often assisted with any cost related to the move. It's much adieu about nothing to lose probably a million+ jobs, and increase pollution on the planet by forcing the company to move everything by boat, truck, or train.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You do realize the pipe is three feet wide right? http://www.keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

I'm sure there are some land grabs required in some circumstances, but I can't imagine it being required for the bulk of it. Anyway, moving people is fine if the job creation and the environmental impact improve. It's not like people "take" your home away in such a proceeding, you are paid whatever the market value is and often assisted with any cost related to the move. It's much adieu about nothing to lose probably a million+ jobs, and increase pollution on the planet by forcing the company to move everything by boat, truck, or train.

The thing with eminent domain is the seized property is supposed to go to public use. Where I live, many decades ago, went through this when they built they Mississenewa Damn. It helped save the city of Peru from further devastating flooding, and it's a pretty decent place for outdoors recreation and camping. But Keystone would be the seizing of privately owned property so that a private corporation can make private profits. It doesn't matter if it's three centimeters of land, a privately owned corporation seizing the land owned by private citizens so they can make profits for themselves is bull****. I'm a flaming anti-Capitalist Communist, and even I see the problems with such an arrangement, and can explain why it is a problem from a classic Laissez Faire Capitalist perspective, as well as why it violates Constitutional law.

 

[Mindmaster]

The thing with eminent domain is the seized property is supposed to go to public use. Where I live, many decades ago, went through this when they built they Mississenewa Damn. It helped save the city of Peru from further devastating flooding, and it's a pretty decent place for outdoors recreation and camping. But Keystone would be the seizing of privately owned property so that a private corporation can make private profits. It doesn't matter if it's three centimeters of land, a privately owned corporation seizing the land owned by private citizens so they can make profits for themselves is bull****. I'm a flaming anti-Capitalist Communist, and even I see the problems with such an arrangement, and can explain why it is a problem from a classic Laissez Faire Capitalist perspective, as well as why it violates Constitutional law.

So the tax dollars these additional jobs generate will not directly benefit the local communities, or will the additional income? Yes, it helps the company, but the company has to hire tons of locals to make it and keep it running. It'd be a complete economic boon! Anyway, seizing the land is not how the bulk of this works. They get an easement, that means you still own the land, but they get a 3ft wide strip of it underground. This is no different than utility easements, and most of us have a strip or two on our property that we are forced to allocate to a similar use. (Please consult any deed, they're on nearly every one.) For the most part, you'd not even know it is there. We have a pipeline for natural gas running through our town and no one got moved out, they just got the easement, and dug the trench and dropped the pipe. They filled in the hole, replanted grass or whatever, and put up a few signs just so people wouldn't dig it up. That literally was the end of it. The town gets some additional money, we got a few more jobs, and everyone is pretty much happy.

Anyway, the public does get immediate benefits -- they're not going to hire people out of state to work the pipeline; they need locals that know the lay of the land.

 

[Underhill]

You'll notice republicans want to defund PP because they do abortions. Although they don't tell their audience it's illegal for tax dollars to pay for abortions.

The only reason the republicans try these shenanigans is to keep the base appeased. When we look at the history of the party there have been plenty of times when the party could have made policy that could have drastically reduced the number of abortions (for example) but instead have chosen these kinds of grandstanding stabs.

Their biggest fear is that the day after pill and family planning would reduce the number of abortions to the point that the base looses interest in the issue.

There are maybe 3 or 4 social issues that keep the republicans in business with a large chunk of their base. Take those off the table and the party becomes a shadow of itself.

 

[tytlyf]

The only reason the republicans try these shenanigans is to keep the base appeased. When we look at the history of the party there have been plenty of times when the party could have made policy that could have drastically reduced the number of abortions (for example) but instead have chosen these kinds of grandstanding stabs.

Their biggest fear is that the day after pill and family planning would reduce the number of abortions to the point that the base looses interest in the issue.

There are maybe 3 or 4 social issues that keep the republicans in business with a large chunk of their base. Take those off the table and the party becomes a shadow of itself.

Yep, they'll say all the right things to garnish votes. Then do the opposite when elected. No one in the middle class has any business voting republican. Republicans do not put forth middle class policies. But they'll sure make it sound like they care.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yep, they'll say all the right things to garnish votes. Then do the opposite when elected. No one in the middle class has any business voting republican. Republicans do not put forth middle class policies. But they'll sure make it sound like they care.

You mean conservatives? They switch parties every now and then. Lately they are flocking to the new Libertarian party.

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean conservatives? They switch parties every now and then. Lately they are flocking to the new Libertarian party.

We're new?
I've been a member since the 70s!

 

[Brickjectivity]

We're new?
I've been a member since the 70s!

I'm checking the obituaries to see when the real conservatives died. I'll get back to you.

 

[metis]

You mean conservatives? They switch parties every now and then. Lately they are flocking to the new Libertarian party.

I typically refer to most of them as "pseudo-conservatives" because they don't want a strong federal government-- until they're in power.