Has the Republican party lost its collective mind?

[Moontanman]

I went back to the beginning of this thread and read it through, I must be losing my edge...

[swansont]

 

You can try ignoring the Republican Party

 

(Coulter is still its career best-selling author and probably most representative public speaker whenever she has finished the Republican pundit amnesia break they all have to take once in a while, get paid by a "think tank" to mark time while their target public's mind clears itself of the reek of what they were saying before).

 

but it will not go away. That thing grows in the dark.

 

How does me ignoring the Republican party affect whether other people pay attention to Ann Coulter? Also, Ann Coulter is a pundit, not a politician, so ignoring a political party will have no effect on this, either.

[John Cuthber]

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or, by way of contrast

here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84846-cross-species-altruism/

but

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/02/trump-wants-to-abandon-u-s-ebola-victims-in-africa-they-must-suffer-the-consequences/

Edited August 3, 2014 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

People wnt to include all republicans under the same umbrella, but I think that some of today's republicans are very different than republicans of 25 or 50 yrs ago.

The members of the tea party cannot be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower.

 

But then again, so are the democrats vastly different.

I wasn't alive at the time, but I've read Kennedy' inagural speech. It included the following :

 

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

 

This sounds decidedly republican to me. Its certainly not something that Obama would say.

And judging by Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq and Israel, certainly not something that Obama would do.

Edited August 7, 2014 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

If you call yourself a Republican, and the other Republicans let you, then you are under that umbrella.
On the other hand, Mr Obama is not a Republican; so his actions have little or nothing to do with the thread.

Edited August 7, 2014 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

Just trying to show how silly the labels are.

[Janus]

People wnt to include all republicans under the same umbrella, but I think that some of today's republicans are very different than republicans of 25 or 50 yrs ago.

The members of the tea party cannot be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower.

 

But then again, so are the democrats vastly different.

I wasn't alive at the time, but I've read Kennedy' inagural speech. It included the following :

 

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

 

This sounds decidedly republican to me. Its certainly not something that Obama would say.

And judging by Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq and Israel, certainly not something that Obama would do.

Have both parties shifted over time? Yes. But to put in in terms of one political analyst, While the Democrats may have shifted from their 45 yard line to their 35 yard line, the Republicans have shifted from their 45 yard line to somewhere behind their own goal post.

[Acme]

Just trying to show how silly the labels are.

That statement is not only silly, it flies in the face of the obvious facts. Does anyone honestly think/claim that Ted Cruz, or Bobby Jindal, or John Boehner don't [proudly] label themselves as Republicans or as conservatives? I have seen this protestation over labels at least a half a dozen times here in the past weeks in the numerous threads we have on conservative politics, and it is a lame now as the first time it was uttered.

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, the assertion that the Republicans were more sensible in the past supports the thread title's suggestion that they have lost their minds.

An alternative would be that they never had (working) minds in the first place.

 

Also, the labels are valid- no matter how silly they may be.

They label two distinct groups- the ones who seem to utter lots of batshit crazy things, and those who don't.

Coincidentally, I see we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of me asking this question.

If you really want to drop his blood pressure, why not actually do as he asks and provide some evidence of batshit crazy left wingers actually being chosen to represent a legitimate political party?

I had a brief look, but I can't see many instances of people rising to the challenge.
Perhaps folks would like to make a special effort to find some Left wing Lunes by the 18th to ballance things.

Edited August 7, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

The members of the tea party cannot be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower.

 

Oooh, I wouldn't even compare Reagan to Eisenhower. Reagan reveled in the military-industrial complex. I doubt Ike would've approved of $3000 coffee pots.

[Acme]

...

I had a brief look, but I can't see many instances of people rising to the challenge.

Perhaps folks would like to make a special effort to find some Left wing Lunes by the 18th to ballance things.

As I quoted from The Authoritarians in the Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? thread, Bob Altemeyer mentions the Weathermen as such an example. He goes on to mention that they quickly blew away. (formed in 1969 the Weather Underground was defunct by 1975). So no; compared to today's Republican Party there are no Democrat/Left-Wing collective-lost-minds analogs.

 

post #37

...You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the People's Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People's Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America "the Weathermen" blew away in the wind. I'm sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of "authoritarian followers" in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale. ...

On the idea of comparing Republicans of different eras, the original Republican President Abe Lincoln came to mind. Pointedly I was thinking of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the now-whacked Republicans suing President Obama for overstepping his authority with Executive Orders. Shall we talk about getting back to the tradional roots of the GOP? (The prejudicial aspects of RWA (Right-Wing Authoritarians) are covered in the other thread.)

[John Cuthber]

To be fair, the source you cite isn't exactly pro Republican. They might have edited out any Loony Left politicians.

 

I'm hoping that those who seek to support the Right wing will be able to provide us with examples of Left wingers who, for example, believe in dragons like the guy in the OP.

 

Of course, it may be that no such people exist- in which case I'd love an explanation from them.

[Ten oz]

People wnt to include all republicans under the same umbrella, but I think that some of today's republicans are very different than republicans of 25 or 50 yrs ago.

The members of the tea party cannot be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower.

Eisenhower passed the Federal Highways act in 1956. One of the biggest govt public works projects ever in this country.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su10.cfm

 

Eisenhower advocated to congress for Universal Healthcare.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10399

 

Eisenhower warned of the "Military industrial Complex".

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

 

Yes the party is very different today. However you said that the Tea party can not be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower when the truth is Reagan can not be compared to Eisenhower. Reagan deregulated the Banks, slashed taxes championing trickle down economics, and was the Military industrial complex's best friend. Forget govt provide Health Reagan closed all the community mental hospitals. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

 

Bush 41, Dick Cheney, Anthony Scalia (first federalist Judge of supreme court), Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc, etc were all part of Reagan's administration. Reagan armed the Taliban and Armed Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Revolution as many Tea Party crazies like Michelle Bachman calls it is the reason why there is a Tea party today. Reagan was that shift in the party.

 

But then again, so are the democrats vastly different.

I wasn't alive at the time, but I've read Kennedy' inagural speech. It included the following :

 

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

 

This sounds decidedly republican to me. Its certainly not something that Obama would say.

And judging by Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq and Israel, certainly not something that Obama would do.

That is a interesting qoute from Kennedy but I think if you start looking at actually policy Kennedy was more in line with the Democratic party of today than Eisenhower, Nixon, or Ford were in line with the Republican party of today.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, politicas as a whole has drifted (some would say "sprinted") to the Right.

Obama got called a communist even though he's probably to the Right of, for example, Kennedy.

That's certainly consistent with the Right hand edge of it needing to be essentially insane, just to stay to the Right of mainstream.

 

I'm still hoping that someone can find the Left wing Nutjobs.

[John Cuthber]

The goal post just moved again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/08/kansas-governor-threatens_n_7539830.html

[overtone]

Obama got called a communist even though he's probably to the Right of, for example, Kennedy.

He's to the right of Nixon and Eisenhower, as well - in his actual legislative and executive efforts and initiatives , certainly, and generally in his rhetoric as well. (TPP, EPA and similar agency policies, Romneycare without a public option, private military contracting and mercenary involvement in war, bank and financial industry regulation, Social Security and Medicare "reform", etc etc etc).

 

 

 

 

That's certainly consistent with the Right hand edge of it needing to be essentially insane, just to stay to the Right of mainstream

The Republican Party officials and major national figures, nominees, etc, are mainstream. Sarah Palin is not a fringe figure. Neither is Scott Walker, or Donald Trump. The neo-Confederates are not on the edge of the Republican Party - they are essential and dominant constituents of its base, its core political strength. Fox News is mainstream, middle of the road, standard US political propaganda - their vocabulary and framing of issues are adopted by all major "news" media.

Edited July 12, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

And now for something completely different: the Republicans party losing it's collective mind- live on TV.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153449869891130/

[overtone]

It's important to realize that this current scene is not a recent development - the takeover of the Republican Party by the manipulated and deranged tools of this American faction that shall not be named dates back to before Palin sent it up the flagpole on national TV, before "Jeff Gannon" was installed as a Republican approved journalist with White House press credentials and 24 hour access, before Cheney installed a private safe in his VP office and blocked subpoena attempts to investigate its contents, before the famously discourteous and philandering Newt Gingrich used his Speaker position to shut down the US government for weeks over Presidential snubs and Presidential adultery, even before Reagan gutted the economy giving tax cuts to the rich while overseeing the setup of a black market arms and cocaine smuggling operation in the lower office levels of the White House:

 

It goes back to 1964, when a Democratic President set out to enforce the Constitutional guarantees of civil rights and civil liberties to black people in the former Confederacy. That opened the door to gathering the formerly distributed white fundies and bigots into one Party, and backing them with the serious money.

Edited November 4, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

There is some professional opinion which says that at least one of them has.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/22/top-u-s-psychiatrists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder-textbook-case/

 

I can't see anything that singles him out as markedly different from the other senior figures in the party.

Can anyone else?

[iNow]

To the thread title:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/12/teflon-trump

 

[Ten oz]

According to Public Policy Polling, a recent poll of 532 Republican primary voters found that 30 percent supported bombing Agrabah. The only problem is that Agrabah is the fictional country from the Disney movie Aladdin.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/poll-30-republicans-want-bomb-fictional-disney-country

[hoola]

fascism ( Mussellini said it should be called corporotism) is at a tipping point of failure, for economic ( banks too big to fail), coupled with environmental factors (Exon, BP, etc.). Like dying dinosaurs, the rush limbaughs scream into their microphones as the giant comet of reality pays a visit...

[MigL]

Read a history book and learn how to spell Mussolini.

He was not a 'corporate' man, but an opportunist.

For the first part of his life he was actually a Communist who wrote for a Communist paper, but when opportunity presented itself, he quickly changed his 'stripes' as a way to better his position and take advantage of others ( and rise in stature/power ).

I realise 'fascism' has taken on a different meaning today, but originally it referenced the 'fasces' or bundles of wheat that you saw scattered about in wheat fields after the harvest ( an old Roman symbol ).

 

He came to power before Hitler, and it is said Hitler was impressed by Mussolini's accomplishments, until he met him and realised what an idiot/buffoon he actually was.

Of course it may have been the festering syphilis rotting away his mind

[John Cuthber]

Meh!
anyway.

 

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-campaign-misstatements-donald-trump/

[MigL]

Meh !

Change the subject from an Italian idiot/buffoon, back to an American one ?