Today's repub party is not Lincoln.


Lincoln was elected to office on November 6, 1860, after running on a anti-slavery, pro-equality, and pro-public jobs platform. The platform pledged not to extend slavery, and Lincoln himself called for prompt establishment of a daily mail service and a transcontinental railroad; notably, both “public” programs.


The 1956 Republican Party Platform explicitly stated, “We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.”


Today’s Republican party is anti-equality, anti-union, anti-minimum wage, anti-unemployment, anti-welfare, anti-woman, anti-United Nations, anti-healthcare, anti-immigration, and pro-corporation.

So, again, Republicans, please do us all a favor and stop calling yourselves the party Lincoln – you are nothing like them.

reply

Thank You Mr. TheSameOldSillyLiberalPropagandaTalkingPointsOfTheLastThirty-FiveYears.

reply

Yeah, except that every point is valid. Have you compared Eisenhower's speeches to Drump's? You think the Tea Party and current repubs aren't racist haters of Obama and of immigrants? Yeah, whatever.

"Hearts and kidneys are tinker toys! I am talking about the central nervous system!"

reply

I think most Americans are alarmed at the number of immigrants coming into the country illegally. Don't you think? It's not a matter of racism. Though Trump lacked sensitivity at time in the past, I didn't find his speech racist. Being against such unrestrained immigration in itself is not racist. If they were all from Europe, the same thing, lots of Americans are struggling, wages are not increasing, a big part of it is illegal immigration.

reply

A bigger part is employers exploiting illegal immigration. That is what really reduces salaries.

Remember, the government throws out these 'bogeymen' to distract the electorate from asking questions and expecting answers, or better still, action from the government.

Everyone points at the immigrants accusingly. The government is, once again, let of the hook.

It is no different in my country.


You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!

reply

[deleted]

There would not be so many immigrants coming into America if trade agreements were not shipping jobs over seas and if we did not hold corporations accountable, that hire them.

reply

What? That makes no sense. We're shipping jobs overseas, so immigrants are rushing into America because there aren't any jobs here any more?

Read what you've written. Did you leave some words out or something?

reply

Nope. I don't think "most" Americans are alarmed at the number of immigrants coming into the country illegally. Those numbers are down significantly, because our economy isn't booming as it once was. There IS no "unrestrained immigration" in this country. SOME people come in illegally; most of these illegals come from Mexico or from/through Canada. There aren't THAT many. It's a ruse, folks. "Nothing to see here, move along; oh hey, look at those ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS over there!"

I *do* think that most of the people who went to see THIS MOVIE are alarmed at the number of immigrants coming into the country illegally. (And no, a big part of why wages are not increasing is NOT illegal immigration. There's literally no correlation between those two things. Wages are stagnant because of so many things you probably wouldn't believe me. It's multi-factorial; not a single root cause. And none of the significant root causes are illegal immigration.)

reply

Idiot Trump makes stuff up on the spot and his acolytes rush to prove him right. It's total fear-mongering. The actual stats put illegal immigration in stagnation: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/20/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

If Trump fans truly care, they will look at unbiased scientific research, rather than believe hysterical hyperbole from lifetime con-man Trump.

I simply am not there...

reply

Get your facts straight before you shoot off your Liberal mouth ... JFK and LBJ wanted nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Come to thing of it ... neither does Obama .. he LOVES Black Lives Matter and hates MLK.

reply

You're right, JFK did want nothing to do with MLK, but Robert Kennedy did.

Before you shoot off your presumably-conservative mouth, you might want to read a few history books, and also work a little harder (you need to do more than watch Fox News) to understand what the Black Lives Matter movement is really about.

reply

Spoken like the Ignorant Lunatic Liberal you are. Yeah, read a history book, by Karl Marx? IDIOT !!! Black Lives Matter is a HATE GROUP. Ask any Black Cop you moron ... next time you need a cop ... call 1-800-BLMX ... Genius ... Bobby Kennedy was never President .. he was running for President when assassinated in Los Angeles by Sirhan Sirhan, a 24 year old Palestinian Terrorist, here illegally who was NOT a U.S. Citizen (sounds familiar).

reply

While D'Souza goes in depth into claims leveled against Democratic leaders like the Clintons and discusses Democrat city bosses, he makes no mention of Republican examples of corruption.

No mention of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Ronald Reagan and Iran-Contra, or Warren G. Harding and Teapot Dome.

D'Souza argued that Democratic Party bosses exploited working class communities, especially immigrants and minorities, to vote for Democratic candidates.

He omits mention of how, during the latter half of the 19th century, Republican-dominated federal politics was also pervasively corrupt.

reply

So disagreeing with Obama's policies makes us racist because he's black? Disliking the FACT that 12 million people have ignored our laws and entered our country ILLEGALLY makes us racist because they are hispanic? Keep telling yourself that

reply

You forgot to refute his points.

reply

In Lincoln's time, Republicans were the progressives and Democrats were the conservatives.
Sure did a full 180 there, the switch happened somewhere between 1872 and 1936.

http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/3613/republicans-democrats-switch-platform

The only thing that remained the same is the location. 
Progressives are still in the northern and western regions, whereas conservatives are still very much in the south.
Those very same "let's secede from the union because we need slavery" people from back in Lincoln's time STILL worship the stars 'n bars flag and they STILL would love to secede... Except, they're now members of the Republican party.

Mind you, Democraps these days aren't anywhere near as progressive / liberal as they SHOULD be. They're moderate Rethugs. And most Rethugs these days are tea bags; religious extremist nutters who lost their way... and mind. 

Down with the 2 party system of douche baggery & corruption. Let's institute true democracy, with open elections.
You're a citizen and at least 18? Vote. No party registration required.
Have a party that draws 10% of any state? Put it on the state's ballot and let the candidates debate on nat'l TV.

www.Kodi.tv

"Come to the dark side. We have cookies."

reply

Well partly true, in the time of passing laws to get rid of segregation and the Jim Crow laws. The Republicans voted to ended segregation and Democrats voted to keep it.

reply

Thanks for pointing out the facts

reply

It's just a cheap trick to make people think Lincoln holds the same values modern Republicans do. Back then the terms Liberal and Conservative were not at odds. If you were a conservative in 1860 it meant staying true to liberal tradition. Today its almost synonymous with fiscal "responsibility". But don't be fooled, today's so called "conservatives" are not really conservative. Bush was called conservative and he increased spending (not to be confused with debt, think deficit) more than any president in history.

Their is an important variable here that was not in effect back in 1956, Global Conglomerates. Corporate money influences virtually every Republican economic position. Anywhere from unions to climate change, if you follow the rainbow to the end you find a pot of gold.

reply

tomcatjak - you make some valid points. BUT, let me fix this for you:
"Corporate money influences virtually every Republican economic position"

Try every Repub AND Democrat position. Please...both Hillary and Tim Kaine can't get their noses far enough up the asses of Wall St investment banks.

Big money corrupts all! Go watch the movie: Clinton Cash for a fantastic example. Streaming free online through Sunday night.

reply

There's nothing "secret" about the history of the Democratic Party. If people actually understood history, they would know that the parties flipped, mainly in the 1960s. It's why Strom Thurmond become a Republican. It's why George Wallace dropped out of the Democratic Party. It's why so many Southern states that were Democratic strongholds a half century ago are now Republican strongholds. There are so many examples of Democrats, especially Southern "Blue Dog" Democrats, becoming Republicans when the Democratic Party moved away from the racism in it's past. Look up the "Southern Strategy" that picked up steam in the 1970s.

reply

DD: D'Souza refutes you in the part of the film where he illustrates how many Democrat officeholders became Republicans--very few. Thurmond was a notorious exception to the fact that racist politicians remained Democrats rather than becoming Republicans.

reply

Further refuting the "Southern Strategy" myth, Nixon lost the south in 1968 (Florida and South Carolina notwithstanding).

reply

The 1968 elections was one of the reasons FOR the Southern Strategy. And it wasn't like just throwing a switch; like anything in the real world, it took time. Also, do your own research about the shift by conservative politicians from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, starting but not ending in the 60s. Going only by what D'Souza claims is not what I'd call becoming educated on the subject.

By the way, Reagan started as a Democrat. Also Jesse Helms.

reply

D'Souza is pretty much a known crackpot, so whatever he says is something I would completely discount. Always independently verify anything someone with an agenda as narrow and partisan as D'Souza's is should be suspect.

reply

@tomcatjak

"Bush was called conservative and he increased spending (not to be confused with debt, think deficit) more than any president in history."

You better check your facts. Obama has increased spending more than both Bush's combined. He has also TRIPLED the national deficit. Those numbers are fact. Look them up on actual government websites, such as the Treasury Department.

reply

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

reply

Obama has increased spending more than both Bush's combined. He has also TRIPLED the national deficit.


Both not even close to true. It's becoming often I have to explain the difference between Federal Deficit and Total Federal Debt. When Obama took office the Federal deficit was 1.4 Trillion, last year it was 400 Billion, so in 8 years he took 1 trillion off of the deficit, in fact he did literally the opposite of triple it, he cut it into one-third of what it was.

So it's funny you are talking to me about facts because the facts are certainly not on your side.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Copy and paste that link for actual stats.

Federal deficit = the amount the federal government spends more than it earns each YEAR

Total Federal debt = the total amount of debt, influenced by the federal deficit every year.

The Total federal debt has gone up, but only because Obama was left which the biggest deficit in the history - by far - when he took office.

reply

Lincoln could never be Democrat. He was pro-gun, pro-Constitution, believed in US sovereignty, respected the military, and had a conscience.



reply

Ah, another a**h*le heard from.

You've got no evidence Lincoln was "pro-gun." This was pre-NRA, and so there literally wasn't such a thing as being "pro-gun." You're deluded.

Everyone was and is pro-Constitution; you just have a different (I'd say warped) interpretation of it. Everyone believes in US sovereignty, respects the military, and has a conscience. That you think those qualities are intrinsic only to Republicans is a big part of the problem we have today, and is why you have Donald Trump as your party's nominee.

(Hint: Donald Trump is no Republican, and not conservative.)

reply

But they love him anyway.

That shows you how confused they are..

reply

Republicans -- Party of Lincoln.

Democrats -- Party of Jimmy Carter and Obama.

'nuff said.

reply

Democrats -- Party of Lincoln

Republicans -- Party of Jefferson Davis



Republican Party is not just far from being the party of Lincoln: It’s really the party of Jefferson Davis. It suppresses black voting; it opposes federal efforts to mitigate poverty; it objects to federal investment in infrastructure and education just as the antebellum South opposed internal improvements and rejected public education; it scorns compromise. It is nearly all white.

'nuff said.

reply

My favorite President is Teddy Roosevelt. The last great Republican President was Eisenhower. Neither of them could get elected dogcatcher in today's Republican Party. I'm not even sure Reagan would have a real chance anymore, unless he just traded on his name and nobody brought up some of the things that he actually believed as President.

reply

Suppresses black voting? I assume you mean voter ID? Are blacks incapable of presenting ID? If you think so, YOU are the racist. Oppose federal efforts to mitigate poverty? Have the TRILLIONS of dollars spent since the War on Poverty mitigated poverty? Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, Lincoln was a Republican. Revisionist history only flys on your pathetic little leftist blogs homie.

reply

Fascinating. You literally are the party of revisionist history. The party of Lincoln is no longer the Republican party; sorry, it just isn't. You can keep telling yourself it is, but Lincoln himself wouldn't recognize it.

Voter ID laws aren't racist because blacks are too stupid to present ID. They're racist because a lot of poor blacks DO NOT HAVE ID. Do a little reading.

reply

Nope it's the party of the #TrumpArmy Patriots, not the Clinton crime syndicate/DC Mafia.

—Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.

reply

I love when people praise Lincoln...you do realize Lincoln said some racist things in his own right and believe whites were superior to blacks, look up the quotes, dont believe me, test me.

reply

You idiot...Abraham Lincoln is the REASON many conservatives are republicans. Since you never had an education or even read about Lincoln, let me offer some quotes of his for the sake of brevity.

“You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
“If this country is ever demoralized, it will come from trying to live without work.”
“You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.”
“If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.”
“That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence built.”
“You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.”
"If at any time all existing provisions be equally divided among the people, at the end of a single year there could scarcely be one human being left alive---all would have perished by want of subsistence."
"I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else."

There are plenty more. You sure are ignorant on the life and beliefs of Lincoln and frankly support a mis-characterization of conservative republicans. It is conservatives like Abe Lincoln who want people to be free--democrats want people controlled and under their thumb, which is why it was the party of slavery in Lincoln's time. (no I'm not saying dems now want slavery, but they do want control.)

You also use as a point that today's republican party is anti-union, this is not true. We are anti- FORCING PEOPLE TO JOIN A UNION AND PAY DUES. Why is it so hard to accept that people should be able to keep all of their paycheck (aside from taxes)? We also don't like the role the unions play in the political process--Teddy Roosavelts idea of a union is what we agree with. If you think the two are similar now--or that Lincoln would favor unions now--you are sorely mistaken and using created history instead of factual history.

And now we come to the trains and post office, etc. What makes you think today's republican party would be against it? The job of the federal government is to do what the people, towns, and states cannot do. Military, interstate commerce, defense, etc etc. A transcontinental railroad would be one of these things. You further show your ignorance of a comparison of today's government vs. Lincolns in that you don't seem to differentiate the way programs are financed. Lincoln's government did not build the railroad, dummy. Private investors and businesses did. What the government did was guarantee free land for every mile of track laid. What this did was create competition between companies to work as fast as possible to get as much land as possible. Today's liberal government would come up with their own government-run company and pay them by the hour in wages, which is why every federal program takes much longer and costs much more than initially "budgeted". Check out green energy, or heck just the Big Dig in Boston for example.
Your creationist history might fly with liberal though police, but the educated mind based on historical fact compared to today's policies will tell you that Lincoln would very much be in agreement with the conservative faction of the republican party today.
The other "antis" you accuse really show how biased and purposely misguided you are, and loses any and all hope for mindful discussion and debate. Making stuff up proves you can't argue based on actual facts. Stop with this drivel, idiot.


Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

reply

I read your first two words.

I did not nor will I read any further.

reply

Makes sense to me. Summed it up for you in two words so you don't have to read the rest. You wouldn't have learned anything anyway. You've already made up your mind.

reply

Lincoln never struck me as a "State's Rights" kind of guy

reply

Now THAT, ozzy24, is the funniest -- and most honest -- reality check for conservatives who claim Lincoln as their own that I've heard here. You may drop your mic now.

reply

Except that he is very, very wrong in saying that Lincoln was anti states-rights and the fact that he said it and you agree with him proves two things:
1) you both have no concept or knowledge of history outside of general conventional wisdom that is of a 1st grade level (literally)
2) you are puppets of the democrat party and believe whatever they tell you without actually looking into things for yourself.

The democrat party in the 1850's began using the "states rights!" cry to associate slave ownership with state rights, it was never a "state right" to own slaves, it was a national right, and quite frankly slavery was never threatened by the federal government until the emancipation proclamation in 1863 after the Civil War had begun. It was actually national protection that allowed people to own slaves--it was at the time constitutionally protected (national), the three-fifths clause (national) helped those who were pro slavery keep their representation higher, and the fugitive slave act (national) mandated the return of run-away slaves. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was protecting slavery, not states. In fact, the northern states had THEIR state rights taken away by not being able to have their own laws regarding runaway slaves, they were forced by the federal government to return them, and those involved in the underground railroad were subject to criminal prosecution. Ableman vs. Booth was a supreme court decision that guaranteed northern states had to follow federal laws on subjects of slavery, the opinion written by a true slave-loving democrat judge, and we all know about Dred Scott, another FEDERAL decision that offended states (and individual) rights, not protected them.
Democrats bastardized the term to use as a rallying cry and Lincoln saw right past it. Democrats today do the same thing--"Lincoln wasn't pro state rights!" which is nonsense, considering there is nothing that says a federal government can't reclaim states that have left the union and formed their own country in the constitution.
Lincoln was very much pro states-rights, as evidenced by his famous "A House divided against itself cannot stand" speech, which was given before he was president in reaction to the Dred Scott decision. In fact, there is a line in that speech that says Lincoln is afraid the Court would eventually rule that our Constitution "does not permit a state to exclude slavery from it's limits". And there's this part, too...“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave state.” Sure sounds like in regards to slavery, Lincoln was very much for state rights and feared the feds would make the U.S. support slavery regardless of state, as they were slowly doing. Lincoln spoke many times while in the Senate and during his presidential campaign that he was afraid the Feds were encroaching on state's rights.
Lincolns election made the democrats go haywire, and let's look at Mississippi's secession declaration to find out why: "Northern states have enacted laws which either nullify Acts of Congress (federal!) or render useless any attempt to execute them." Another state said in their secession that republicans were committing "offenses against the laws of nations." Doesn't sound like state rights to me. Even a look at the Confederate constitution will show us that when it comes to slavery and democrats, state rights were out and national power was in.
Lincoln was a true federalist and not in favor of a unitary government. He believed in James Madison's ideas of federalism--which for you uneducated people is the concept of strong state rights with a national government. Any in depth education on Lincoln would prove that undeniable.

In short, learn some friggin history for a change. (Que the response "didn't read it, too long, etc." that has no rebuttal because you know you are defeated based on fact and not feeling)



Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

reply

Lincoln is spinning in his grave.

reply

Today's Democratic party is not Kennedy. It has swung so far left that Kennedy would be considered right wing conservative now.



reply

THERE it is! Conservatives are admitting that the Democratic Party is not the conservative party it was in the past, that it has CHANGED in the last half century. So much for D'Souza's argument in this movie!

If you'll actually check your history (real history, not D'Souza's revisionism) you'll find that Kennedy was hated by Southern Democrats at the time as far too liberal. His visit to Texas in November of 1963 was considered dangerous because of the hostility of the Dixiecrats he was meeting there.

reply

I can't believe people think today's Republican party has anything to do with Lincoln! How our education system has failed us!

Here is a very good video by Vox, it's short and to the point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU.

reply

VOX, now there's an unbiased source.

reply

I can't believe people don't. It's creationist history not to. Lincoln was a conservative, period.

Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

reply

Hahaha!

Wow, little "goodthingsjohnny", you sure are fixated on race and especially on writing long, boring and totally unoriginal comments Lecturing everyone on race.

Are you an Expert Authority? What are your exact qualifications?

Because you talk about "the blacks" as if you learned everything you know from being a couch-potato. Reality is different than TV, child.

But, hey, keep it up! You do sound pompous, condescending and like a true know-it-all (who learned all they know from TV and Talk Radio).

Maybe soon you will start THINKING FOR YOURSELF? Until then, keep on Parroting those weak little Talking Points...

reply

Have no idea where the race thing came from as that is not what is being discussed here...

You prove by the "long, boring" that you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to arguing actual historical fact. Nice childish play-ground tactics there.

Compared to you, I am a know-it-all.

If my arguments are so weak, how about you go ahead and debate my above points with historical context and backing like I did? That's right....you can't.

Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

reply

Hey, goodthingsjohn, if you want a real laugh, go click on conrrad's name and check out some of his recent posts. He has a pattern of attacking random people and accusing them of being know-it-all mind readers who are superior to him. He rants and raves about his own inferiority, facts vs. opinions, etc. It's like he has a canned attack he's just waiting to unleash on people.

No joke -- I looked up half a dozen of his exchanges with normal IMDB users. I laughed the hardest I've laughed in a long time.

I don't know if this guy's under-medicated, over-medicated, self-medicated, or what.

reply

goodthingsjohn said:

You prove by the "long, boring" that you don't have a pot to piss in when it comes to arguing actual historical fact. Nice childish play-ground tactics there.


"Childish playground tactics"? Like you, calling people names on the Christmas Carol board if they say something you don't agree with? Grow up.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

reply

Lincoln hated conservatism and has been quoted in saying.

"I always move forward".

Does stripping free labor from big business sound conservative to you..

Thanks

reply

Conservatives are admitting that the Democratic Party is not the conservative party it was in the past


You must've fallen asleep in history class to think the party of Wilson and FDR was conservative.

The fact that the current Democrats would demonize JFK for some of his beliefs only proves how far the party has shifted even further left in the past 20-30 years.

Hell, they almost nominated an admitted Socialist.

reply

They almost nominated? Who are "they"? You're talking about American people, voters. You're not talking about the Democratic party themselves. They did not want Bernie to be nominated.

What is this about attacking or demonizing JFK by Democrats? What did they say about him? I can find some information about criticizing some of his policies, and by looking at some of his policies I think the criticism is fair, if true.

reply

'They' would be the Democratic voters. And the only reason the DNC didn't want Bernie is because they think Hillary has a better chance of beating Trump. Debbie Wasserman Shultz was asked what the difference was between a Democrat and a Socialist, and she couldn't answer the question.

JFK advocated a huge across-the-board tax cut, not only on people but also on corporations. Today's far-left Democrats would demonize him for even suggesting something like that.

And remember, JFK was assassinated by a communist. Today, the Communist USA Party doesn't even put up a candidate for President. They just tell their fellow communists to vote for the Democrat.

reply

The Democratic party, in fact, most in office now don't really like Bernie. Why? Because he's a bit radical. He talks about huge ideas but has very little focus on what he can actually achieve. He isn't even a Democrat either, which is another problem the party has with him.

And, when JKF cut taxes as he did, it was a different time, and rates were different. Both Democrats and Republicans were not happy about his tax cut proposals saying it would increase the countries deficit.

None of these points you are talking about have anything to do with the price of tea in China.

And can you cite your source on Debbie claiming she doesn't know the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? I find that very hard to believe.

You can look that up the definition of both in a second on the Internet.

reply

At least I actually went to a history class. But then, even reading a book would tell you that there was in the past quite a lot of conservative Democrats. Do you even know what a Dixiecrat is?

And your claim that the current Democrats are demonizing JFK in any way explains what you were doing behind the school instead of showing up for the history class. But then, I have to keep remembering that to a conservative who sees everything in black and white terms, it's impossible to approach any issue in any other way than either supporting it slavishly or demonizing it.

reply