Is history repeating itself? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Hillwilliam -> Is history repeating itself? (6/4/2016 5:48:15 PM)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.




dcnovice -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/4/2016 6:04:17 PM)

Fascinating read. Thanks!




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/4/2016 7:47:35 PM)

The Republican party betrayed it's founding principles long ago.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/4/2016 7:50:31 PM)

As far as it being a bad thing, well no. It's a good thing. When a party completely reverses it's basic founding principals in its quest for power the way the Republican party has in the last 30-40 years, then it is time for that party to die.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/5/2016 4:40:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.


What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.




MrRodgers -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/5/2016 10:53:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.


What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.


.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln. Made up of former Whigs, Free Soil democrats and Know Nothings. The repubs came to dominate presidential elections until FDR in 1932.

But then came the Radical Repubs. the Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage.

They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials, military officers and soldiers. They bitterly fought seventeenth President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?




BamaD -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/5/2016 11:09:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.


What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.


.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln. Made up of former Whigs, Free Soil democrats and Know Nothings. The repubs came to dominate presidential elections until FDR in 1932.

But then came the Radical Repubs. the Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage.

They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials, military officers and soldiers. They bitterly fought seventeenth President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?

Dems who stated that Clinton was clearly guilty of impeachable offenses voted for aquittal so they would impeach a Dem president.

On the other hand Nixon resigned because a group of Rep senators, led by Barry Goldwater told him he should as they were going to vote guilty.
What is considered the central question to the senate watergate herarings was asked by Senator Baker, a Rep.

It may be the the Rep have sunk to the level of the Dems but the Dems have made it clear.




MrRodgers -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 1:10:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.


What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.


.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln. Made up of former Whigs, Free Soil democrats and Know Nothings. The repubs came to dominate presidential elections until FDR in 1932.

But then came the Radical Repubs. the Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freedmen, such as measures ensuring suffrage.

They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts, and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials, military officers and soldiers. They bitterly fought seventeenth President Andrew Johnson; they weakened his powers and attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?

Dems who stated that Clinton was clearly guilty of impeachable offenses voted for aquittal so they would impeach a Dem president.

On the other hand Nixon resigned because a group of Rep senators, led by Barry Goldwater told him he should as they were going to vote guilty.
What is considered the central question to the senate watergate herarings was asked by Senator Baker, a Rep.

It may be the the Rep have sunk to the level of the Dems but the Dems have made it clear.

Many more repubs than dems in the house voted against impeachment articles against Clinton. The house had a repub majority. The senate dems voted against conviction.

However, The U.S. House of Representatives votes 11 articles of impeachment against President Andrew Johnson, nine of which cite Johnson’s removal of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, a violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The House vote made President Johnson the first president to be impeached in U.S. history.

The Republican-dominated Congress greatly opposed Johnson’s Reconstruction program and in March 1867 passed the Tenure of Office Act over the president’s veto. The bill prohibited the president from removing officials confirmed by the Senate without senatorial approval and was designed to shield members of Johnson’s Cabinet like Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had been a leading Republican radical in the Lincoln administration.

At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Andrew Johnson, a senator from Tennessee, was the only U.S. senator from a seceding state who remained loyal to the Union. In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln appointed him military governor of Tennessee, and in 1864 he was elected vice president of the United States. Sworn in as president after Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, President Johnson enacted a lenient Reconstruction policy for the defeated South, including almost total amnesty to ex-Confederates, a program of rapid restoration of U.S.-state status for the seceded states, and the approval of new, local Southern governments, which were able to legislate “Black Codes” that preserved the system of slavery in all but its name.

On February 21, 1868, Johnson decided to rid himself of Stanton once and for all and appointed General Lorenzo Thomas, an individual far less favorable to the Congress than Grant, as secretary of war. Stanton refused to yield, barricading himself in his office, and the House of Representatives, which had already discussed impeachment after Johnson’s first dismissal of Stanton, initiated formal impeachment proceedings against the president. On February 24, Johnson was impeached, and on March 13 his impeachment trial began in the Senate under the direction of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. The trial ended on May 26 with Johnson’s opponents narrowly failing to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to convict him.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 6:08:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.

What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.

.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln.


The cause doesn't matter. Lincoln didn't come along until 1860, after the Republican Party was already 6 years old or so.

The irony stands regardless of causes or politicians in the fold. The party that replaces the GOP (if it does disband like the Whig Party) might not even exist today (like the Republican Party didn't exist when the Whig Party was imploding).


quote:

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?


If a GOP President committed an impeachable offense, I'd hope the GOP would bring articles of impeachment.




Musicmystery -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 6:13:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.

Interesting piece.

I hope so. The current Republican Party has become a travesty. I'd like to see it reform into something sane.

The Democrats are headed down the same road -- remains to be seen whether they turn around or double down.

Left/right and D/R have largely played themselves into ineffectiveness and irrelevance. The real divide now, regardless of party, is Oligarchy vs. Populism.





MrRodgers -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 7:51:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.

What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.

.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln.


The cause doesn't matter. Lincoln didn't come along until 1860, after the Republican Party was already 6 years old or so.

The irony stands regardless of causes or politicians in the fold. The party that replaces the GOP (if it does disband like the Whig Party) might not even exist today (like the Republican Party didn't exist when the Whig Party was imploding).


quote:

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?


If a GOP President committed an impeachable offense, I'd hope the GOP would bring articles of impeachment.


Bush did, lying about intel he didn't have or simply falsely took as WMD in Iraq or yellow cake shit in Africa. Laid outing a CIA field agent on Scooter Libby and they didn't impeach. Reagan for Iran/Contra. Almost every house session has articles of impeachment drawn up but are never voted on.

Even the OBL fiasco and ties to his family and favored treatment. Then there was talk of impeachment of Obama for the OBL fraud, HERE or immigration EO's and FDR for trying to pack the courts.

The repubs were almost universally against impeachment of Nixon. I don't think we'd ever see a repub impeached by repubs, maybe in the house the dems might but I doubt that too and would never be removed by dems in the senate.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 1:05:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Blah Blah Blah

Why didn't the Dem's vote to impeach Bush when they had the chance? Either they were bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs.

With Obama's Immigration EO's, I do believe he's stepped outside his Constitutional bounds, as did he not all that long ago.

So, the GOP's bringing up impeachment over them either is bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs.

Regardless, it's still ironic that the Whig's chose popularity over principles and ended up imploding, leaving the opening for a new party, the Republican party. And now, it's the GOP choosing popularity over principles. We have yet to see how this impacts the party. Would be most ironic if they implode and are replaced by the Whig Party.




Termyn8or -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 1:44:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

As far as it being a bad thing, well no. It's a good thing. When a party completely reverses it's basic founding principals in its quest for power the way the Republican party has in the last 30-40 years, then it is time for that party to die.


Can't help but agree with that. However that leaves the problem of who is going to stop these liberals whose hearts bleed for every rapist and urdere and want to take more rights away from good people.

I think, as many do, that the government is best when in contention. We who know, don't want either party's agenda imposed.

Look at all the cool shit that was not partisan. The PATRIOT ACT, The Monsanto Protection Act, foreign aid to dictatorships. The force to attack Iran and start possibly, WW3.

No, we need them doing as little as possible. There are enough fucking laws already.

I think laws should expire every like five years, except for those which specifically protect the rights of people, like against murder, rape, theft, shit like that. DIRECTLY related to the first ten amendments.

T^T




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 2:18:27 PM)

quote:

However that leaves the problem of who is going to stop these liberals

Nobody.
quote:

whose hearts bleed for every rapist and urdere

That's just stupid.
quote:

and want to take more rights away from good people.

All sides in the US political scene want to do that, they just approach it from different angles.
quote:

like against murder, rape, theft, shit like that. DIRECTLY related to the first ten amendments.

Really, because none of the crimes you listed is directly related to the first ten amendments. Maybe you ought to take the time to actually read them.




Termyn8or -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 8:39:34 PM)

"Why didn't the Dem's vote to impeach Bush when they had the chance? Either they were bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs. "

No grounds under the law I think.

"At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." "

From : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Nixon's enemies were extremely politically powerful and he was no idiot. He knew who and what they are. The real masters never wanted him in power. In fact I think they somewhat entrapped him with the Watergate shit. And really, the one guy who could have got up this frameup was Liddy, who swore absolute loyalty to his President. Bottom line is Nixon didn't need any o this bullshit, microphones, LASER beams on the patio doors from across the street. And Nixon was a poker player, if he OKed the Watergate breakin, of which I have doubt, then he was nowhere as smart as I thought he was.

But back to the thread, yes, history is going to repeat itself. People will kill each other and life will go on because we got plenty of people.

T^T




BamaD -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 9:06:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Blah Blah Blah

Why didn't the Dem's vote to impeach Bush when they had the chance? Either they were bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs.

With Obama's Immigration EO's, I do believe he's stepped outside his Constitutional bounds, as did he not all that long ago.

So, the GOP's bringing up impeachment over them either is bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs.

Regardless, it's still ironic that the Whig's chose popularity over principles and ended up imploding, leaving the opening for a new party, the Republican party. And now, it's the GOP choosing popularity over principles. We have yet to see how this impacts the party. Would be most ironic if they implode and are replaced by the Whig Party.

They were bsing. The members of the intellegence committies Dem and Rep alike had acsess to the same reports from the same agencies around the world as Bush did and the came to the same conclusions. It was much more effective to feed the Bush lied myth that to expose the fact the they saw the same things he did and either agreed with him or backed his actions for other reasons.




BamaD -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 9:09:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Why didn't the Dem's vote to impeach Bush when they had the chance? Either they were bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs. "

No grounds under the law I think.

"At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." "

From : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Nixon's enemies were extremely politically powerful and he was no idiot. He knew who and what they are. The real masters never wanted him in power. In fact I think they somewhat entrapped him with the Watergate shit. And really, the one guy who could have got up this frameup was Liddy, who swore absolute loyalty to his President. Bottom line is Nixon didn't need any o this bullshit, microphones, LASER beams on the patio doors from across the street. And Nixon was a poker player, if he OKed the Watergate breakin, of which I have doubt, then he was nowhere as smart as I thought he was.

But back to the thread, yes, history is going to repeat itself. People will kill each other and life will go on because we got plenty of people.

T^T

They never demonstrated a connection between Nixon and the breakin.
His offenses were in the coverup.




MrRodgers -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/6/2016 9:15:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Why didn't the Dem's vote to impeach Bush when they had the chance? Either they were bullshitting and had nothing, or they didn't do their jobs. "

No grounds under the law I think.

"At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." "

From : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Nixon's enemies were extremely politically powerful and he was no idiot. He knew who and what they are. The real masters never wanted him in power. In fact I think they somewhat entrapped him with the Watergate shit. And really, the one guy who could have got up this frameup was Liddy, who swore absolute loyalty to his President. Bottom line is Nixon didn't need any o this bullshit, microphones, LASER beams on the patio doors from across the street. And Nixon was a poker player, if he OKed the Watergate breakin, of which I have doubt, then he was nowhere as smart as I thought he was.

But back to the thread, yes, history is going to repeat itself. People will kill each other and life will go on because we got plenty of people.

T^T

They never demonstrated a connection between Nixon and the breakin.
His offenses were in the coverup.

Correct, it was obstruction of justice and some say that Deep Throat was a free lance CIA operative or even Naval Intell. that deliberately gave the press enough info. to hang him, as it were. They wanted Tricky Dick out because even [they] couldn't trust him and wanted a clean slate and got it in G Ford.





Musicmystery -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/7/2016 5:49:44 AM)

We've know the identity of Deep Throat since 2005. FBI, not CIA or Naval Intel:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbis-no-2-was-deep-throat-mark-felt-ends-30-year-mystery-of-the-posts-watergate-source/2012/06/04/gJQAwseRIV_story.html




mnottertail -> RE: Is history repeating itself? (6/7/2016 6:16:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935
I hope not.

What's ironic is that it was the Republican Party that replaced the Whig Party just a few years later.

.....but they had a stronger cause, anti-slavery and a much better man...Lincoln.


The cause doesn't matter. Lincoln didn't come along until 1860, after the Republican Party was already 6 years old or so.

The irony stands regardless of causes or politicians in the fold. The party that replaces the GOP (if it does disband like the Whig Party) might not even exist today (like the Republican Party didn't exist when the Whig Party was imploding).


quote:

That's right kinkroids. Repubs tried to remove a repub pres. from office. Can you imagine that now ?


If a GOP President committed an impeachable offense, I'd hope the GOP would bring articles of impeachment.



Michigan 1856 I believe, and Lincoln was around, and in it. Lincoln-Douglas debates.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875