By today's standards would J.F.K. be considered a moderate Republican?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Seattle, Apr 3, 2021.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    Would you consider J.F.K. to be a "moderate Republican" by today's standards? Eisenhower certainly would be considered that but I think that would apply to J.F.K. as well.

    I think I would like to see one of the two major parties remake themselves into a "moderate" party and it wouldn't really make any practical difference if it was the current Democrats or Republicans.

    There was a lot to like regarding the Democrats of that era.

    What are your thoughts?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,831
    Until the Republican party breaks away from Trumpism, it is hard to see anyone being a moderate Republican. JFK and probably DDE would be moderate Democrats.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,124
    everyone wants a 3rd option when they only have 2 options

    'us or them' game as a personal ideological forced social & professional reality is quite harsh as a social indoctrination & abuse model on children and teenagers

    the overt duality of the 2 primary partys whilst having no true democratic independent party as a liberal democrat representing a non racist liberal modern progressive secular equal rights human rights
    type of morality would seem obvious

    but you have to keep in mind the vast majority of people are raised in an indoctrinated manner
    indoctrination is far easier than true education
    be that private elite schools or public low money schools.
    indoctrination always wins when you dont have intellectual progressive democrats running the education system.

    so while you play with different flavours of political bent, the party created will still fall victim to the subconscious programming of its fascists communists and sheep
    & predators etc

    JFK was a socialist by modern USA political standards
    same with Eisenhower
    but they balanced their socialism with private elitism which enabled large monopoly private ownership of key industrys
    that works well with tight sensible progressive regulation
    but usa has far too little regulation to drive a balanced market reality
    its all about tipping the scales to a class group
    so regulation is made to not change anything while playing the victim game to the loosing 50% of the us versus them indoctrination game

    your looking for a solution but you need to know what type of question your asking about what specifically YOU are saying is broken AND which your openly admitting that YOU seek to fix.

    most people claim nothing is broken so it doesn't need fixing as long as the obvious brokenness is working in a way that does not negatively impact them financially.
    and when you have a society built on money before people
    money comes before all social issues
    which is why you cant solve the racial issue without first solving the money(economic social services system) issue

    keep in mind the majority dont want it to change(thats the indoctrinated sheep, which is driven by the education & entering the job market social & economic reality including college pricing)

    if you want to try and balance that against Eisenhower & kennedy
    you need to realize there was no job shortage in their day and government spending was unlimited.
    imagine that
    no job shortage
    & no body cared about government spending billions on a whim
    & no one cared about private monopoly's being handed out like candy at a fair to the megga wealthy elite.

    imagine[its the reality] for a moment your trying to build a new better world
    and 99% of high school graduates lack the intellectual stamina and mental discipline to read the length and language of my post)

    see how that donkey rides an elephant in todays level of greed and us versus them morality

    usa needs to want to admit its broken and then admit it needs fixing
    long way to go before it gets there
    like the smack junky, you cant cure a junky who wont admit they dont have a problem
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,875
    Any candidate is a candidate for the party they belong to, on whose platform they stand and whose membership they have to woo.
    The mood of the party at any given time determines what kind of candidate they'll endorse and support.
    Right now, the Republican party has no moderates (and very few vertebrates), because it's exiled them all to the hinterland of book authorship - and since Republicans mostly don't read anything longer than a tweet, that means being heard only by the liberals who watch late-night television.
    Whatever flavours Democrats come in these days, a moderate is probably a nonentity or president - nothing in between.
     
  8. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,313
    the question posed shows a mind boggling ignorance over how the parties ideologies have shifted since the early 60's. the democrats have shifted a moderate degree to the right economically and massively to the left socially while the republicans have gone all in on being a far right anti democracy party. realistically kennedy would have probably straddled the divide between the moderate dems and the progressive wing. in no universe would he have been a republican.


    seriously thinking a person whose ideas were part of the civil rights act of 1964 would belong to the party of fuck you if you not white.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,614
    Mostly it's just an attempt to reframe how people view Republicans. It's a weird proposition, though: If we take a person from one period, insert him into another, and then analyze him according to principles and standards of a third, we get an unreliable analysis, but at least then people aren't judging the white supremacism.

    Or, rather, a particular problem about judging something on its merits arises when there is nothing of merit remaining for us to assess.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    Or, those who are just waiting to emote, get to emote.

    My post had nothing to do with support for the Republican Party. It was to (have a discussion) point out that liberal thinking of the 60's (a time of rapid social change) was actually rather moderate and to my mind more thoughtful than liberal thinking of today.

    After all Kennedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you but rather what you can do for your country".

    For that matter Nixon would be more moderate than conservatives of today much less than Republicans of today. Even traditional Republicans have largely left the Republican Party of today and just call themselves Independents.

    Continue to emote however if it works for you.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,313
    im sorry you don't like being called on your stunning ignorance to utter the question you did. you continuing to try and whitewash the right wing in this country and absolve it of its sins. no politician from the 60's would be a republican today except maybe the dixiecrats who you know became republicans. you are showcasing the typical american right wing ignorance of where american political parties sit ideologically and where the us as a population does.
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    Are you dense? Just asking?

    I'm not "white washing", defending or in support of the right wing today.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,614
    False:

    This proposition promotes the ongoing conservative complaint about Democratic Party leftism and extremism, which simply is not demonstrable in history without abiding extraordinary presuppositions that do not hold consistent or even stable outside their custom-wrought contexts.

    For instance, the Democratic Party moving forward and executing the Republican Party health care agenda was never extreme leftism, or a socialist takeover, or anything like that. It was simply the Democratic Party advancing the Republican policy agenda because that was all they could get that was better than nothing. The flip-side of that argument, of course, is that Bob Dole, who actually went to war against the Nazis, was a Nazi.

    There is, of course, an outside possibility that you are hoping the Democratic Party will moderate by moving leftward, but that really would feel like a really new you.

    (Don't worry about that last; it's an obscure almost-joke about this guy I know who tries to posture himself as liberal and even leftist, and complains about the elitism of fellow progressives disdaining his rightism. Or something. No, really, it doesn't make much sense to me, either. But it's true, it could still turn out that he is some amazing ultra-leftist who has finally found the rational justification for supremacism and now just won't tell us because none of us are worthy of the new revolution. Revelation. Revolution. Whatever. And if this paragraph sounds like I'm mocking you, no, no, I'm not even mocking him; that's just how the story goes.)​
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    "No really" as a phrase can be overused ...no really.

    What do your comments are health care and Bob Dole have to do with JFK?
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,614
    Learn some history.

    Also, learn to read.°

    Sorry, but without a more specific question than, "What do your comments are health care and Bob Dole have to do with JFK?" it is difficult to figure what you're on about.

    No, really:

    … the ongoing conservative complaint about Democratic Party leftism and extremism, which simply is not demonstrable in history without abiding extraordinary presuppositions that do not hold consistent or even stable outside their custom-wrought contexts.

    For instance, the Democratic Party moving forward and executing the Republican Party health care agenda was never extreme leftism, or a socialist takeover, or anything like that …".


    (Tiassa #10↑)

    The phrase, "For instance", in this case, indicates an example, on this occasion reminding the absurdity of pretending Democratic partisan extremism in Obamacare, which, despite being a conservative policy proposal (HEART Act) shepherded in Congress by Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), and after its passage in Massachusetts under Gov. Mitt Romney (R) term, became, in conservative opinion, both communist and Nazi, once the policy torch was passed to a Democratic president.

    In the present, the proposition↗ that, "it wouldn't really make any practical difference if it was the current Democrats or Republicans", is particularly vacuous, devoid of any apparent consideration of practical results. It's kind of like the Trolley Problem: What, do you want the Democrats to negotiate how many people need to die? Drop a couple of them at the ballot box and the rest will do exactly that. Now apply that argument to Covid, but remind yourself that it doesn't make any difference either way. It seems reasonable enough to wonder what you expect the Democrats to do in order to "remake themselves into a 'moderate' party".
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° When ignorance↗ is the best excuse others can come up with on your behalf, it might be helpful if you adjust your presentation so that ignorance is not necessarily the face you rush to show us.​
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    Twix you and I, tis a matter of understanding how the economy functions. No really, it's not a matter of redistributing wealth. Wealth isn't something that just appears and that is available to "redistribute".

    To the one, excess wealth only exists outside of subsistence economies. To the other, redistributing it from those who created it to those who didn't is a surefire way of ending up with a smaller economy. No one wins under that scenario. No really.

    Increasing national debt year after year can't continue. You can't mail everyone a check, spend trillions on "infrastructure", continue to fund the current size of the military and expect things to do well indefinitely.

    Common sense is lacking. You never had any it seems but others it appears have lost any that they once possessed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2021 at 5:21 AM
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,474
    I agree. In that sense, since the debt grows faster under republicans and slower under democrats, there is at least a less-bad choice.[/QUOTE]
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    I don't know that that's the case but they both have a bad track record and if the Democrats are better then I would agree. I've never been for the Bush nor Trump administrations so that's not the point (for me).

    Given the current spending of the Biden administration I don't think that will be the case (although I'm still glad to have Biden vs Trump). It's going to be an issue however.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,614
    #twofer | #tomacco

    When pulling out of your ass, nobody is impressed if you keep coming up with excrement.

    Such fallacies are how we end up with threads like this. Or, to borrow a phrase:

    †​

    Okay, I do confess, the other possible track is just as inanely compelling:

    So, when the Democrats sit down to negotiate between one and three dead, and the GOP demands seven, are you going to complain if the Democrats aren't moderate enough to agree to five? And then once they do, are you going to complain, along with the rest of the GOP, that the Democrats ever negotiated over the number of acceptable dead, at all?

    It's not just that your questions and arguments don't recognize history; they also don't seem to recognize themselves.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    You seem like a pleasant enough fellow. What went wrong?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,614
    It has to do with reasonable accommodation of particular needs compared to ignorance being your best pretense of justification. And when the backdoor excuse would be bad faith, it becomes important to observe that there is no reasonable accommodation of bad faith, that accommodation of bad faith is inherently dysfunctional.
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,958
    No one would accuse you of being dysfunctional, right?
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,474
    Deficit is the difference between spending and income. If spending and income both increase at similar rates, then there's no increase in deficit.

    That being said, Biden's spending plan is not sustainable under any of his taxation proposals. If the plan works to get us out of the pandemic, it has to be cut shortly afterwards.
     

Share This Page