Is the U.S. Republican Party the most dangerous political party in the world?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try. 

[Goldwater]

Yes, obviously.

[Lief 🗽]

I mean, they're close. They're essentially one of those far-right populist parties that win about 10% of the vote in most European countries.

[H. Ross Peron]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

[opebo]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

To whom?  Those are all little nobodies in not-very-powerful countries.

[DC Al Fine]

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try. 

That's a given when their political system only allows two parties comprised of diverse factions and politicians are given much more freedom than their peers in other countries.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try. 

unlike say, the Communist Party of PRC.

[bedstuy]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try.  

I think their lack of principle and status as corporate stool pigeons is actually a relative virtue when it comes to being "dangerous."  For example, imagine the Tea Party in total control of the US government during the financial crisis.  It would be worse than the Great Depression.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try.  

I think their lack of principle and status as corporate stool pigeons is actually a relative virtue when it comes to being "dangerous."  For example, imagine the Tea Party in total control of the US government during the financial crisis.  It would be worse than the Great Depression.

And what the hell is the difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party? 

[bedstuy]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try.  

I think their lack of principle and status as corporate stool pigeons is actually a relative virtue when it comes to being "dangerous."  For example, imagine the Tea Party in total control of the US government during the financial crisis.  It would be worse than the Great Depression.

And what the hell is the difference between the Tea Party and the Republican Party? 

The Tea Party Republicans are more ideological, whereas the business wing of the Republican Party does what Wall Street tells them.  Basically, my point is that principled conservative nutjobs would have rejected the TARP program, while mainstream Republicans would vote for it.

[Torie]

I guess I just like living life dangerously. How many threads are put up per week by someone making sweeping grand unified theory statements as to just how horrible the Pubs are? And curiously, I don't see the obverse much, which obverse of course (with the blue avatar on top and all over the red one), would immediately be labeled (particularly by those red avatars who enjoy as indulging in this sort of thing) as well, you guessed it, trolling!

Carry on. The blue team is used to the insults, and perhaps in a rather masochistic way, rather enjoy the brickbats. But if I have anything to say about it, a blue avatar will never get punished via death points or whatever, for "trolling" in this way. If one does, a lot of other avatars should go down with him would be my case in the cave. Thank you.

[Kitteh]

most dangerous != worst. the most dangerous party would have to be a party in one of the most powerful countries in the world. there really are only three possibilities: the US Democrats, the US Republicans, and the Chinese Communist Party (maybe United Russia too, but Russia isn't really powerful enough anymore). of those the Chinese are the worst, but China seems less interventionist/more domestically focused than the US right now so the GOP is the most dangerous, imo

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

Neither rules, or possibly can rule, a country with such amount of power as the U.S. So no.

For example, GWB did more damage to the world than Kims, Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, Greek neofascists combined. For simple reason: they didn't held the Oval Office.

[Vosem]

Depends on what your definition of 'dangerous' is. To individual people? I would say the Korean Workers' Party. To the world order/people as a whole? Either the Communist Party of China or United Russia. US parties are vague coalitions that have no control over themselves. In and of themselves, they pose no danger to anybody. What they produce, of course, can be incredible. To put it mildly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In the past they've been the only ones with the force of will to properly command the nation against foes abroad, so in terms of sheer ability to take life from the rest of the earth and willingness to do so, yes.

[barfbag]

Considering they hold a position of great influence in the world's sole global superpower... and seemingly do not care about anything other than furthering the interests of the corporate and interested persons who bankroll them...

Yes, they most certainly are.  

Post ANY principle they supposedly hold to, and I can provide a direct contradiction to it that has occurred in the last year.  Go ahead, try. 

Republicans could make the same argument about the Democratic Party. There are a lot worse ideologies than conservatism my friend.

[AkSaber]

Didn't the Democrats enthusiastically vote for the PATRIOT Act, Afghanistan, Iraq, illegal surveillance, ect?

Someone please tell me how Democrats and Republicans are different.

[H. Ross Peron]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

To whom?  Those are all little nobodies in not-very-powerful countries.

So how many deaths is the GOP directly responsible for as opposed to say the Workers' Party of Korea?

[H. Ross Peron]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

Neither rules, or possibly can rule, a country with such amount of power as the U.S. So no.

For example, GWB did more damage to the world than Kims, Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, Greek neofascists combined. For simple reason: they didn't held the Oval Office.

None of Dubya's policies (disastrous as they were) are comparable to say the massive famine that the Kims allowed to occur on their watch or gassing Kurds.

[barfbag]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

Neither rules, or possibly can rule, a country with such amount of power as the U.S. So no.

For example, GWB did more damage to the world than Kims, Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, Greek neofascists combined. For simple reason: they didn't held the Oval Office.

None of Dubya's policies (disastrous as they were) are comparable to say the massive famine that the Kims allowed to occur on their watch or gassing Kurds.

Your party supported the Patriot Act, Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and Homeland Security. What did you think of your party at the time they supported these things?

[H. Ross Peron]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

Neither rules, or possibly can rule, a country with such amount of power as the U.S. So no.

For example, GWB did more damage to the world than Kims, Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, Greek neofascists combined. For simple reason: they didn't held the Oval Office.

None of Dubya's policies (disastrous as they were) are comparable to say the massive famine that the Kims allowed to occur on their watch or gassing Kurds.

Your party supported the Patriot Act, Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and Homeland Security. What did you think of your party at the time they supported these things?

I'd have supported the Afghan War FWIW. And the Democrats who supported Iraq and restricting civil liberties were plainly wrong but it was a Republican President who pushed this and Republicans who support and defend the moves even to this day.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No. The Golden Dawn, National Front. Workers' Party of Korea, Freedom and Justice Party, United Russia Party, and the Baathist Party of Syria among others are far more dangerous.

Neither rules, or possibly can rule, a country with such amount of power as the U.S. So no.

For example, GWB did more damage to the world than Kims, Saddam, Assad, Erdogan, Greek neofascists combined. For simple reason: they didn't held the Oval Office.

None of Dubya's policies (disastrous as they were) are comparable to say the massive famine that the Kims allowed to occur on their watch or gassing Kurds.

Your party supported the Patriot Act, Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and Homeland Security. What did you think of your party at the time they supported these things?

When the hell did I ask if the Democrats were dangerous or not?  They sure have been.  The GOP though, is much worse. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, of course not, not by a long shot.  Their leadership is dangerous, but the party itself is not.  Please stop trolling here.

[minionofmidas]

Evidently the GOP and the Democratic Party are the two most dangerous political parties in the world, but disagreement on which one is worse is, I think, perfectly legit.

[opebo]

most dangerous != worst. the most dangerous party would have to be a party in one of the most powerful countries in the world. there really are only three possibilities: the US Democrats, the US Republicans, and the Chinese Communist Party (maybe United Russia too, but Russia isn't really powerful enough anymore). of those the Chinese are the worst, but China seems less interventionist/more domestically focused than the US right now so the GOP is the most dangerous, imo

Best post in the thread imo.