• DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Republicans aren’t conservatives anymore and no one should be calling them that. Regressives is the proper term.

    • The argument I hold against conservatism, even classic conservatism is that there are too many people who are miserable, too many people in crisis. And to disregard them, to fail to acknowledge and respond to their state is wrongdoing against humanity.

      Of course, post-Nixon conservatism endorsed dehumanizing and disenfranchising the lower strata on the social hierarchy.

      MAGA, who disregards everyone not MAGA is the natural progression.

      And they don’t realize the plutocratic class even unperson them, and will cut even into themselves as they can.

      The face-eating leopards come for everyone.

    • betanumerus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 hours ago

      When this MAGA version started 10 years ago, they were called the “alt right”. To me, GOP stands for “Gas and Oil Party”.

    • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      This is where conservatism always leads. There’s only one genuine ideal held by conservatives, and that’s that society should be hierarchical. While most general populace conservatives don’t realize it, it’s an inherently dishonest ideology because the real driving force is the wealthy who want to become an aristocratic class but realize nobody will just give them that, so they instead direct your attention toward attempts to put someone under you while they quietly elevate themselves. Everything else is just window dressing and distractions. Conservative leaders don’t give a shit about abortion or trans rights, but they do care about riling up their base to garner support over stupid shit and distract them from all the pillaging.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They’re mostly economic libertarians, wealthy Capitalists seeking tax breaks and lobbying, cultists, and fascists.

      Quite often they’re all of the above.

      This is very different to people who genuinely want to improve the conditions of their neighborhoods/families/towns/community/spirituality/nation.

      Conservatives let their values be hijacked. They did so willingly to “win”… And now I don’t think they exist anymore. They fucked around, found out, now they don’t have a party.

  • 2026 Progressives and DSAs are to the right of Eisenhower.

    The United States of America has long lost the plot, but then I’ve been reading up on it’s shitty history. It may never have had the plot.

    This time, I hope the survivors throw the fucking Ring into the fucking volcano.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      We use Epsteins cock-ring as the ring of power now. The real ring got hocked and the money sent to Israel years ago. We could throw it into a volcano but I hear theres thousands and thousands of those rings, held by both parties. So another one will just appear. Some say Mossad are still making new pedo cock-rings even now.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Republican party was an idea about affordable housing.

    It’s the broke ass lazy racist white bros who don’t want to do more than mediocre effort and get handed a job over everyone else that thought this idea affordable housing in particular meant only for them. Yet They were easily brainwashed to think it was every other party that caused the lazy white billionaire bros yoinking out affordable housing and not giving them a job.

    They still don’t see the connection.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The John Birch society accused Eisenhower of being a communist agent, which shows how hilariously paranoid they are.

  • chuckleslord@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    He also whinged about the evil of the military industrial complex that he oversaw the permanent creation of. I don’t like Ike

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      His administration also used the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 to purposefully run highways through black neighborhoods, seizing people’s homes and apartments through Eminent Domain.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

    Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    138
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    That was when republicans were the progressives and democrats were the conservatives, though.

    Before the party flip, it makes little sense to refer to ‘republicans’ and ‘democrats’. Those labels changed, not only in their values, but what the ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ platforms even were at that time, since there were different crossover issues than in today’s society.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That was when republicans were the progressives.

      While there was a party flip on social issues in the 1960’s, Republicans from 1910’s to today were the party of big business.

      Republican’s opposed Unions, Labor laws, and the New Deal that created Social Safety nets and helped Labor over Capital.

    • protist@retrofed.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 day ago

      There were plenty progressive Democrats back then, who do you think lead the New Deal and Great Society movements? The parties did not line up so neatly into “progressive” and “conservative” during this time. There was a lot more variety within each party, and both parties had both left- and right-leaning wings that often disagreed

    • Triumph@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Mmm it was mid flip. Don’t forget that Republicans railed against Social Security that FDR was proposing.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Before the major flip during the Southern Strategy of the 60s/70s, though.

        That’s sort of what I meant by crossover issues early on making even ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ muddy, even beyond ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ being basically meaningless to our modern ears.

    • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yep. Conservatives (edit: the Conservative bloc of American politicians, not whatever other thing you’re writing a snide reply about right now) came to be called that because they were interested in conservation of nature, before it came to describe fiscal policy or religious extremism. The conservatives of today are nothing like them.

      • berber@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        to my understanding, that is very much not true.

        the terminology of being a “conservative” did not come from supporting conservation of nature. that might be one aspect, and indeed, still today, there are conservatives that are very much interested in the conservation of nature, but this is not where it came from. it came from schools of thought in the american and french revolution concerning conservation of aspects of tradition, aristocracy, royalty, and religion.

        afaik, this has also been the case tbroughout american history as well. perhaps you are referring to people like teddy roosevelt, who identified as a conservative to the public and had conservationist views and policies.

        • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 day ago

          to my understanding, that is very much not true.

          You say it’s not true, but then you describe a time during which the word was used in a different way, as more of an adjective or categorization than to name a party defined by that category. I stand by what I said.

          • protist@retrofed.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Conservatives came to be called that because they were interested in conservation of nature, before it came to describe fiscal policy or religious extremism.

            You made this totally incorrect statement without any evidence and now you’re arguing with a person (who seems to actually know history) who accurately described the origin of the political term “conservative.” What’s up with that?

            • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              1 day ago

              Amazing how everyone who has shown up to “um akshually” me is either misinterpreting what I said or talking mad shit without making a point. Blocked because you’re doing the latter.

              • teslekova@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                You win here if you take the L.

                Accepting corrections shows that you are a serious person who is interested in the truth, not in scoring meaningless victory points.

                To put it another way, you are acting like Trump. Inability to back down is incredibly weak.

                • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  19 hours ago

                  Thanks for telling me to lay down and take revisionist history, .ml user. It’s very on brand. Also blocked.

              • protist@retrofed.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 day ago

                When you make shit up and state it as fact, you’re going to find people disagree with you. Taking that personally sounds hard

        • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 day ago

          They weren’t an American political party referred to as Conservatives though. Thanks for the supplementary history but maybe try not being so combative with presenting it in the future.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            They weren’t an American political party referred to as Conservatives though.

            And there still isn’t such a thing, so what’s your point? Political party name isn’t the same as ideology. Are you going to argue that the Nazis were “socialists” next, just because that’s what their name claimed?

            maybe try not being so combative with presenting it in the future.

            Maybe try to debate honestly instead of relying on fallacious semantic arguments and tone-policing.

            • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              17 hours ago

              And there still isn’t such a thing, so what’s your point?

              Republicans. The official party name is Republicans, and they are known very well as “the Conservative party”. Sometimes a capital C is actually used.

              Get blocked for revisionist history nonsense, as well as misinformation and being a massive hypocrite.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                16 hours ago

                If you keep blocking everybody who calls out your BS soon you won’t have anyone to talk to at all.

                The bottom line is that the modern Republican party is truly conservative, in the official Burke and DeMaistre monarchist sense (although they euphemize it as “unitary executive” now), no matter how much you try to pretend they mean the word differently.

      • nao@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Many “conservatives” of today shouldn’t be called that imho, it’s more like they are progressive but in a different direction

  • Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Does anyone actually know how taxes work in the US? Eisenhower didn’t tax millionaires at 90% only the top portion of their income got taxed that high. The US has a progressive tax bracket system, look it up if you want to know more about us taxes than 99.9 percent of US citizens.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I don’t know what were the brakets. But a lot of the time, for billionaires, the vast majority of their income gets taxed at the highest bracket. Because the other brackets are too small to even register in their income.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nobody earned enough to be taxed in the top bracket. That was the entire point. To avoid that top bracket, businessmen lowered prices, or paid employees higher wages, or purchased tax deductible goods and services. What they didn’t do was take additional profit, because the IRS would claim 91% of those profits. Everything the businessman did to avoid that punitive top tier was of great benefit to the economy.

      • rayyy@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Businesses also plowed money back into their companies to make them bigger and thus employed more people.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          True, but this is actually the core of the underlying problem. They expanded their ability to extract profit from their customers and workers, while retaining ownership of that ability.

          With a 91% tax rate, the company would have a compelling reason to offer ownership shares rather than converting profits to capital. The kind of expansion you’re talking about still occurred, but the workers owned it.

    • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s basically every tax system excluding the ones without taxes or that apply a flat rate to everyone.

    • CHOPSTEEQ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I had to explain this to my retired parent, who worked their entire life handling payroll. It’s genuinely appalling that the system is so effective at keeping the public uninformed.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Many Eisenhower voters became Democrats when the GOP took a hard right in the late 60s/early 70s.

    • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Was it the 60’s when there was the parties flipped? I always thought it was the 20’s/30’s with Hoover and FDR?

            • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              Looks pretty comprehensive to me. Appreciate it!

              Though the “Other possible political realignments” section feels a little liberal in its definition of “realignments”, what with approximately every other election since 1964 being labeled as a realignment.

              • dreamkeeper@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Other than Nixon it was a much more gradual change. Even in the 90s you still had deep red states voting for Democrats every now and then, look at all the states Bill Clinton won.

                It’s only in the 21st century where the realignment finally settled and you can really see where the lines were drawn.

              • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 day ago

                That’s kinda why I called it not comprehensive, it seems a bit too inclusive for me to think that word quite applies.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’ve seen similar before, but it’s a good broad view of how things moved around. It wasn’t a flip in the 60s, but a migration of the Dixiecrats (Civil Rights was just too far for them) and dying off of the more liberal side of the Republicans, so those voters scattered, some coming to the Democrat side since that’s where support for things like social programs went.

  • Sailor Anarres@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    He also massively expanded the CIA and FBI to target activists, destroyed Iran, was massively Homophobic (leader of the lavender scare) and was a huge Franco fan.

  • artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    A little misleading but the general point is accurate.

    It was 91% on income >$200k. Adjusted for inflation would be ~$1.7M, according to Politifact. Still not at all a crazy amount of money. I mean that’s well into the 1% earners.

  • CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yea, google the southern strategy, racist fucknutz from the south took over the GOP and the parties flipped with the former GOP politicians becoming Democrats

      • CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        It started in the 50s, ironically because the GOP couldn’t make gains in the south, so they started to appeal to southern white racists to get their vote. It wasn’t a quick thing

        Quick edit, I should say its roots started in the 50s. Nothing of which belays the point that the GOP that freed the slaves is the same GOP that likes to say they are the party of Lincoln

        • IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think it really started in the 30s, with the understanding of psychology for marketing.

          Check of Century of Self on YouTube… It’s documentary… 4 hours.

    • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Didn’t he drop more explosives on Korea than was dropped in the entirety of world war 2 or something like that? He was directly responsible for the establishment of the military I dustrial complex.

        • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah that’s fair, he did realise the magnitude of what he’d created and regretted it all the way to his deathbed. I suspect Lindsay Graham died pontificating on his love of needless murder while what whatever exploded his arsehole did what it did to explode it.

  • IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Consolidate the emotions into lifestyle and you end up with easily manipulated groups to lead for your agendas… CIA style.

    From politics to to subcultures…

    It’s the reason why everything seems to lose its soul.