Lincoln would be rolling in his grave to see the modern GOP

They call themselves the Party of Lincoln while simultaneously defending the Confederacy.
Baffling.
- Definitely not the state's right to let rich white men own black people. Nope, not that at all.
- I got banned from the /conservative community on .ee because one of those idiots was saying that Democrats are the ones who support the Confederacy.
  I posted five pics of traitor flags at Trump rallies and the mod banned me for "bad faith."
  He left up the lies that I refuted though, just like a cryptofascist would.
  
  See, they didn't even play their shitty little game correctly. You don't say the Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. You say the Democrats were the party of slavery. And then you ignore the connection between the Confederacy and Slavery. Then hope no one brings up the Southern Strategy and the obvious realignment.
  Obviously it falls apart if you think about it for even a second, but it's not designed to convince anyone. It's designed to sound good to people who won't think about it for even a second, and annoy the people who would.
  
  I know exactly the user making that claim and the mod that banned you.
  They subscribe to a different reality over there.
  
  It's such an odd argument. It's true that the democrat party is the party pre 20th century that supported slavery rights.
  The deep south was a Democratic stronghold until around the 1950s when the party started supporting civil rights and social reform.
  At this point the southern wing of the party broke off from the main party.
  The Republican party was founded specifically by anti slavery activists in the 1850s and was rather neutral on civil rights issues post civil war until they saw the fracture in the Democrat party in the 1950s and used the opportunity to change their platform to oppose social reform in order to pick up those disenfranchised southern voters.
  So saying the democrat party was the party of slavery during the civil war is one of those things that's technically true but has no bearing on the present.
- The only thing consistent with conservatives is the cognitive dissonance. They will hold two radically contrary ideas and do the most idiotic mental rationalizing why that usually hinges on them as a person making some arbitrary judgement. They're all unimaginative idiots who should be used for just manual labor.
  
  Nah, there is not internal cognitive dissonance. They say stupid shit to pander to their stupid base, but they are the party of the rich. They know exactly what they are saying; but their goal is, and has always been to advance the goals of the rich.
  At the lowest level that means ensuring the rich get richer. At the highest level it means ensuring class and race division, creating a system of oppressive laws that only apply to those who can’t afford to be in their class, and merging their financial interests quite literally with the government (corporatocracy).
  They pretend they are against abortion for religious means. They are against abortion because it’s the poor that keep them rich, and they want poor children to be born and join the system.
  They pretend they support our troops in defense. They support war because taxpayer money goes directly into their pockets from military defense contractors. Then they consistently vote against veteran’s support bills because they don’t give a shit about the troops.
  They say they support small government. But they want the government to consistently get involved to force private corporations to allow their hate speech to flourish.
  The list goes on and on.
  
  Remember that cognitive dissonance actually causes mental health issues even if they are under the surface. These people actually suffer from it.
  
  Thank you for using ‘cognitive dissonance’ the right way.
- No no no you see it's more complicated. No, I can't explain it. I don't fully understand, myself. I can't personally defend the Confederacy but I identify with them strongly and questioning them makes me angry. Instead I'm going to attack you, Joe Biden, communists, and BLM in order to derail the conversation.
  (/s)
  But also it's not really sarcasm it's more like satire because I truly feel like some Republicans think this way.
- Party of Lincoln('s murderer)

The confederacy lost, deal with it. If you want to own people be born a billionaire like a smart person

It's about states rights!
The right for individual states to ensure black people are enslaved.
- They were protecting their way of life!
  To enslave others
  They were defending against northern aggression!
  While the north died to free black human beings
  They had economic anxiety!
  Because they didn't want to work like the slaves were
- Article 1 of the Confederate Constitution made it illegal for any Confederate state unilaterally outlaw slavery.
  It wasn't even about states rights a little bit.
  
  Some light reading, for anyone unfamiliar with the Confederate Constitution
  Article 1, Section 9(4):
  No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  States are not allowed to impair the right to own slaves–specifically, negro slaves. "But there were slaves of all races!" And only one race was mentioned in the Confederate Constitution.
  Article 4, Section 2(1):
  The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
  Again, the right to own slaves is protected, and I do not have the right to claim or free any slaves that set foot in my state after escaping from their owner in another.
  Article 4, Section 2(3):
  No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
  My state cannot pass a law that frees any slave that sets foot on our soil, and furthermore, we must deliver any slaves that make their way here back to their owner.
  Article 4, Section 3(3):
  The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
  Emphasis mine. Any new states allowed into the Confederacy must protect the institution of slavery, specifically negro slavery, as it exists in the Confederate States at the time of their founding. If my state is annexed, I have no right to decline participation in the institution of slavery; I must allow my citizens to own people–specifically, to own negroes.
  But yeah, states' rights and all that.

Lincoln would be a Democrat as would Theodore Roosevelt. Both were Progressives in their time.
The future of the Republican Party is either a huge shift to the left, like all the way to the left or to disappear and be replaced by another Progressive Party. Democrats would stay where they are and be the Center Right Party.
- No way in hell that the GOP shifts to the left at this point. I hope you're right about a progressive party emerging someday, but I have my doubts.
  
  Political parties are not static. When Trump falls the Republican brand dies. They will reinvent themselves as a left wing party to regain the power they lost. It won't look anything like it does now by 2030.
  
  They aren’t saying that current members become liberal. Eventually the radicals will move elsewhere and the remaining GOP will go closer to where they were 40 years ago.

https://nitter.net/JoeBiden/status/1740221284284256645#m
good practice to be providing a link to a post you've screenshotted so people can check it's real easily, OP

She should go read Alexander H. Stephens's (VP of Confederacy) Cornerstone Speech
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
- Look just because it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and explicitly goes on record telling you it is without a doubt a duck doesn't necessarily mean it is a duck because ducks don't usually go on record about anything. Besides, just because something behaves like a duck before you give it immense political power to control your life doesn't mean you should assume said "duck" will behave like a duck after you give it political power. Most "duck" like entities only behave like ducks to get elected and are actually chickens at heart so you have nothing to worry about so don't listen to their quacking THEY ARENT DUCKS OK.
  pstttttttttttt, by the way to all you patriotic citizens out there trying to decide who to vote for, our candidate SURE loves hanging around at parks eating bread tossed to them by old ladies!

Sort of insane the reason for the civil war is debated. Sure, it was a confluence of factors but it's pretty obvious slavery was #1 by far
- An oft-repeated Reddit comment goes something like this:
  When you know a little about the civil war, you think it's about slavery.
  When you know a little more about the civil war, you realize there were other factors.
  When you know a lot about the civil war, you realize it was all about slavery.

still pissed off that i share a name with this asshat
- Fight her, Highlander style.
  
  may the best nikki win (ME!!!!)
- Yeah, well just imagine how the comet feels.
- Go by Nimarata as a power move.

Lincoln wasnt GOP, the southern strategy is why republicans and democrats effectively swapped parties. Its a bit more complicated, but the democrat party was founded by conservatives.
- Feels like you stumbled your words a bit there, not sure if your comment would make sense to people who don't already have the context. I'm gonna leave some very much condensed notes here for future readers.
  Basically: 160 years ago the parties were divided by Conservative Democrats, Young Progressive Republicans, and Moderates with respective caucuses, the system in place at the time was the result of the First Party System that ended in the late 1920s and the Second Party System that began thereafter. The caucuses had to form alliances in order to certify the president candidates, the speakers, etc since higher voter participation was only a recent development these decisions were mostly behind closed doors with less concern of public opinions. Lincoln was a Whig, a Moderate Republican with a strong aversion to the war started by the Seceding Southern States. In Fact, despite strong pressure to do so, Lincoln did not abolish slavery until the southern states had already seceded and waged war for 3 years, because he was still hoping until that point to convince the south to surrender and make lesser concessions.
  Over the following century things changed quite a bit, while the Republican Party was still for the most part a pro-union and personal liberties/freedoms party until the signing of the bipartisan Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which majority Republicans voted Yes and minority Democrats voted Yes, the turning point is when Democrat President Lindon B Johnson signed the Act and paraded it around as a great achievement, and then went on to fund social programs such as Food Stamps. After this, the parties began to shift such that Republican Candidates had to Campaign against the party who was, in the eyes of the public, the party of Equality. Racism and segregation became a staple Republican Stance. Keep in mind at this point there was no harsh Partisanship or Polarization in the two parties, each had a broad range of opinions in their members but on key votes they usually voted with their caucuses.
  This brings us to The Southern Strategy as it was coined by people like high ranking Republican Goldwater. The idea here was that the South was Ripe to be turned over to the Republican Party due to the lingering sentiments of the Civil War and the potential outrage against Lindon B Johnson, so that's where the Republican Party invested all of their campaign funds to try to win the house, senate, and presidency. As this happened, the policy stances of the Republicans had to realign with their new constituents, and the policy stances of Democrats shifted to oppose them. As more time passed Partisanship grew and grew, as illustrated by this nice graphic from Vox.
  https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-visualization

I always thought the war was over states rights, specifically the right to keep slaves, but generally too?
- They specifically mention the right to keep slaves in their succession.
  The southern states wanted to enforce their laws on the northern states.
  "States rights" is a modern reframing of the story.
  
  Interesting! I just had a look at the NC ordinance of succession and they definitely mention slavery and enshrine slaves as property but it's all the way down in section 9 a long with a bunch of other rights.
  Weirdly there's actually a section banning the import of any more 'negros' (white slaves ok presumably?).
  I'm not completely convinced of your point. Did the people of the time consider states rights the issue?