Bush41 Finally Six Feet Under, Trump Opens Fire

[Dale Smith]

Once again we were blessed with a barrage of Twitter rants from Trump45 as a new day dawned on our rebounding nation. He unleashed on Bob's team of filthy ambulance chasers and then paused to name a new AG and hottie Heather Nauert to replace equally hot Nikki Haley at the UN. Then he gave the media rats the finger, hopped on AF1, and beat feet to Missouri, a state he recently liberated from ol Crooked Claire. All in a day's work for the man who will one day grace the face of Mt. Rushmore.

Only if his plane runs into the mountain.

He’d sell Rushmore to a strip mining company if he could .

Amazing how trumptards celebrate his daily disgraceful ramblings . He must have been on the shitter for a while this morning.

Disgraceful only in the eyes of a commie sack of shit like Timmy.....

 

[bendog]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

 

[WillPower]

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

Okay, I gave ya props for your joke (which you stole) but now you've used up all the words you needed for the rest of the year....I hope it was worth it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

For his part Lincoln came to the Republicans from the dying Whig party, which made up a large part of its earliest membership, and the Whigs were all about Big Gummint.

Some sneaky lib went back in time and forced Jefferson to say libtard stuff....It was probably Soros

 

[Pogo]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

 

[whitehall]

Hotties?

 

[Rustic]

Once again we were blessed with a barrage of Twitter rants from Trump45 as a new day dawned on our rebounding nation. He unleashed on Bob's team of filthy ambulance chasers and then paused to name a new AG and hottie Heather Nauert to replace equally hot Nikki Haley at the UN. Then he gave the media rats the finger, hopped on AF1, and beat feet to Missouri, a state he recently liberated from ol Crooked Claire. All in a day's work for the man who will one day grace the face of Mt. Rushmore.

Mt. Rushmore?

Oh yeah, that structure carved into sacred Indian land by a Klanner. That one.

I hate to break this to you but Mt. Rushmore is not named after Lush Rimjob.

Lol
“Sacred Indian land”? Please educate yourself on the subject, real Indians don’t consider land as an Possession. Only fake casino Indians like Washington Redskin do...

 

[basquebromance]

Trump Is Playing 3-D Chess With A Rubik’s Cube Behind His Back

 

[bendog]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

 

[miketx]

Trump45---lol

 

[jc456]

Once again we were blessed with a barrage of Twitter rants from Trump45 as a new day dawned on our rebounding nation. He unleashed on Bob's team of filthy ambulance chasers and then paused to name a new AG and hottie Heather Nauert to replace equally hot Nikki Haley at the UN. Then he gave the media rats the finger, hopped on AF1, and beat feet to Missouri, a state he recently liberated from ol Crooked Claire. All in a day's work for the man who will one day grace the face of Mt. Rushmore.

Only if his plane runs into the mountain.

He’d sell Rushmore to a strip mining company if he could .

Amazing how trumptards celebrate his daily disgraceful ramblings . He must have been on the shitter for a while this morning.

yep, they're fking great. anything beats the blah, blah, blah, TDS from all of the network outlets. When are they actually going to report a news story?

 

[Timmy]

So is the week long funeral over?.....good I can turn on the TV again....

1/2 as long as McCains !

 

[Harry Dresden]

Once again we were blessed with a barrage of Twitter rants from Trump45 as a new day dawned on our rebounding nation. He unleashed on Bob's team of filthy ambulance chasers and then paused to name a new AG and hottie Heather Nauert to replace equally hot Nikki Haley at the UN. Then he gave the media rats the finger, hopped on AF1, and beat feet to Missouri, a state he recently liberated from ol Crooked Claire. All in a day's work for the man who will one day grace the face of Mt. Rushmore.

Mt Rushmore?....lets not get carried away....

 

[Pogo]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

Jackson never ran with a party. His body of supporters, which were not organized as such, were simply called "Jacksonians", which doesn't really address who they go with after Jackson. His detractors weren't organized either; they were simply ever-so-creatively called "anti-Jacksonians", which ditto. After Jackson was elected twice, vanBuren organized the body of Jacksonians into the Democratic Party, which name was first used in 1834 (during Jackson's last term), and in the same period the anti-Jacksonians were also organized into a formal party (mainly by Henry Clay) called the National Republicans (1830) which evolved just a few years later into the Whigs. So VanBuren was the first POTUS candidate to run under the Democratic Party label and win, in 1836. And the first Whig candidates ran the same year; there were four of them among which were Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison who became the first Whig President in 1840.

There is no direct descendancy from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats, any more than there is one from the Whigs to the modern Republicans. There were migrations of large contingents (but not the entire body) of the older party to (eventually) the newer one but such migration was not universal to the extent that an existing party changed its name. I know some partisan Democratic historians like to connect their bridge to Jefferson but they're being disingenuous to hitch onto the Jefferson star ship (hee hee I kill me); the fact is it was Van Buren who organized it into a party, before which it wasn't one. Apparently they're trying to make the organization appear older than it is, seemingly under the impression that that would be a good thing. Then we've got Special Ed on this site who periodically checks in to inform us that TJ founded the modern Republican Party, which is a neat trick for a guy who was dead for 28 years. He too seems unaware that nobody has exclusive licence on the name "republican".

None of the above however are to be confused with or related to the American Republican Party (1843) which soon renamed itself the Native American Party, then the American Party, and is commonly historied as the Know Nothings.

There used to be a whole lotta parties goin' on. Van Buren later ran again for POTUS for the Free Soil Party.

Fun fact: The Whigs got two Presidents elected, both of whom died (of natural causes) in office -- Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848). Taylor had been the father-in-law of Jefferson Davis.

 

[Lesh]

Trump is shitting his pants

 

[mikegriffith1]

Only if his plane runs into the mountain.

Okay, that's a good one! Well played.

 

[bendog]

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

Jackson never ran with a party. His body of supporters, which were not organized as such, were simply called "Jacksonians", which doesn't really address who they go with after Jackson. His detractors weren't organized either; they were simply ever-so-creatively called "anti-Jacksonians", which ditto. After Jackson was elected twice, vanBuren organized the body of Jacksonians into the Democratic Party, which name was first used in 1834 (during Jackson's last term), and in the same period the anti-Jacksonians were also organized into a formal party (mainly by Henry Clay) called the National Republicans (1830) which evolved just a few years later into the Whigs. So VanBuren was the first POTUS candidate to run under the Democratic Party label and win, in 1836. And the first Whig candidates ran the same year; there were four of them among which were Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison who became the first Whig President in 1840.

There is no direct descendancy from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats, any more than there is one from the Whigs to the modern Republicans. There were migrations of large contingents (but not the entire body) of the older party to (eventually) the newer one but such migration was not universal to the extent that an existing party changed its name. I know some partisan Democratic historians like to connect their bridge to Jefferson but they're being disingenuous to hitch onto the Jefferson star ship (hee hee I kill me); the fact is it was Van Buren who organized it into a party, before which it wasn't one. Apparently they're trying to make the organization appear older than it is, seemingly under the impression that that would be a good thing. Then we've got Special Ed on this site who periodically checks in to inform us that TJ founded the modern Republican Party, which is a neat trick for a guy who was dead for 28 years. He too seems unaware that nobody has exclusive licence on the name "republican".

None of the above however are to be confused with or related to the American Republican Party (1843) which soon renamed itself the Native American Party, then the American Party, and is commonly historied as the Know Nothings.

There used to be a whole lotta parties goin' on. Van Buren later ran again for POTUS for the Free Soil Party.

Fun fact: The Whigs got two Presidents elected, both of whom died (of natural causes) in office -- Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848). Taylor had been the father-in-law of Jefferson Davis.

I really don't know where you're going with this. Jacksonian dems controlled the party for decades until the civil war. It was a conflict over "cheap land"/Jeffersonian expansion and "hard money" and vs a continuation of Hamilton's banking system. The Whigs and their bank essentially went out of biz with their inability to confront slavery and the emergence of Lincoln, who satisfied to some extent the radical abolitionists who sought to use federal govt to take property without compensation, and then to wage Total War, Lincoln did just that ... although people in non-seceding states didn't lose their slaves right away.

After that the dems were dominated by the Bourbon Dems and states rights, silver and fiscal conservatism. Until the progressives.

The civil war was a midpoint in American history, at least up until post-Reagan, whatever that is and will become. I doubt I'll be alive for it, but it scares me nearly do death thinking of what my daughter will face.

Jefferson was the first demoRat. Lincoln, though nominally a republican, took private property without compensation. (-:

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

Jackson never ran with a party. His body of supporters, which were not organized as such, were simply called "Jacksonians", which doesn't really address who they go with after Jackson. His detractors weren't organized either; they were simply ever-so-creatively called "anti-Jacksonians", which ditto. After Jackson was elected twice, vanBuren organized the body of Jacksonians into the Democratic Party, which name was first used in 1834 (during Jackson's last term), and in the same period the anti-Jacksonians were also organized into a formal party (mainly by Henry Clay) called the National Republicans (1830) which evolved just a few years later into the Whigs. So VanBuren was the first POTUS candidate to run under the Democratic Party label and win, in 1836. And the first Whig candidates ran the same year; there were four of them among which were Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison who became the first Whig President in 1840.

There is no direct descendancy from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats, any more than there is one from the Whigs to the modern Republicans. There were migrations of large contingents (but not the entire body) of the older party to (eventually) the newer one but such migration was not universal to the extent that an existing party changed its name. I know some partisan Democratic historians like to connect their bridge to Jefferson but they're being disingenuous to hitch onto the Jefferson star ship (hee hee I kill me); the fact is it was Van Buren who organized it into a party, before which it wasn't one. Apparently they're trying to make the organization appear older than it is, seemingly under the impression that that would be a good thing. Then we've got Special Ed on this site who periodically checks in to inform us that TJ founded the modern Republican Party, which is a neat trick for a guy who was dead for 28 years. He too seems unaware that nobody has exclusive licence on the name "republican".

None of the above however are to be confused with or related to the American Republican Party (1843) which soon renamed itself the Native American Party, then the American Party, and is commonly historied as the Know Nothings.

There used to be a whole lotta parties goin' on. Van Buren later ran again for POTUS for the Free Soil Party.

Fun fact: The Whigs got two Presidents elected, both of whom died (of natural causes) in office -- Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848). Taylor had been the father-in-law of Jefferson Davis.

I agree sort of. Not detail, but in the overall. The civil war was a midpoint in American History between the founders and the end of the cold war ... or the American Century.

Until the civil war the dominant issue of the Federalists and the Whigs was central banking. In a sense that was the gop too, and FDR reveled in capital's hatred of him. But after Lincoln used the federal army to take private property and suspend habeus to wage a total economic war of devastating the civil government of the seceding states, the issues of the federal govt having power to finance transcontinental railroads and canals in foreign countries became quaint.

But our two party system has always pitted those with the money v. "common man."

Today's gop may be something a little different.

 

[Pogo]

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

Jackson never ran with a party. His body of supporters, which were not organized as such, were simply called "Jacksonians", which doesn't really address who they go with after Jackson. His detractors weren't organized either; they were simply ever-so-creatively called "anti-Jacksonians", which ditto. After Jackson was elected twice, vanBuren organized the body of Jacksonians into the Democratic Party, which name was first used in 1834 (during Jackson's last term), and in the same period the anti-Jacksonians were also organized into a formal party (mainly by Henry Clay) called the National Republicans (1830) which evolved just a few years later into the Whigs. So VanBuren was the first POTUS candidate to run under the Democratic Party label and win, in 1836. And the first Whig candidates ran the same year; there were four of them among which were Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison who became the first Whig President in 1840.

There is no direct descendancy from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats, any more than there is one from the Whigs to the modern Republicans. There were migrations of large contingents (but not the entire body) of the older party to (eventually) the newer one but such migration was not universal to the extent that an existing party changed its name. I know some partisan Democratic historians like to connect their bridge to Jefferson but they're being disingenuous to hitch onto the Jefferson star ship (hee hee I kill me); the fact is it was Van Buren who organized it into a party, before which it wasn't one. Apparently they're trying to make the organization appear older than it is, seemingly under the impression that that would be a good thing. Then we've got Special Ed on this site who periodically checks in to inform us that TJ founded the modern Republican Party, which is a neat trick for a guy who was dead for 28 years. He too seems unaware that nobody has exclusive licence on the name "republican".

None of the above however are to be confused with or related to the American Republican Party (1843) which soon renamed itself the Native American Party, then the American Party, and is commonly historied as the Know Nothings.

There used to be a whole lotta parties goin' on. Van Buren later ran again for POTUS for the Free Soil Party.

Fun fact: The Whigs got two Presidents elected, both of whom died (of natural causes) in office -- Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848). Taylor had been the father-in-law of Jefferson Davis.

I really don't know where you're going with this. Jacksonian dems controlled the party for decades until the civil war. It was a conflict over "cheap land"/Jeffersonian expansion and "hard money" and vs a continuation of Hamilton's banking system. The Whigs and their bank essentially went out of biz with their inability to confront slavery and the emergence of Lincoln, who satisfied to some extent the radical abolitionists who sought to use federal govt to take property without compensation, and then to wage Total War, Lincoln did just that ... although people in non-seceding states didn't lose their slaves right away.

After that the dems were dominated by the Bourbon Dems and states rights, silver and fiscal conservatism. Until the progressives.

The civil war was a midpoint in American history, at least up until post-Reagan, whatever that is and will become. I doubt I'll be alive for it, but it scares me nearly do death thinking of what my daughter will face.

I guess this was supposed to be a joke (?) but in the interest of sobriety "Democrats" did not exist in Jefferson's lifetime. The first Democrat by such a name was Martin van Buren. Who coincidentally is the only POTUS whose native language was not English.

Well, the demoRat was a joke, but Jefferson and Adams were the first to run on a ticket as members of a party, and Jefferson's (and Madison's) democrat-republican party was the antecedent to the "liberal" US party, or the dems. The Federalists are considered the forerunner to the GOP, although Lincoln was certainly considered a radical disruptor of civil order by some.

Neither of those is true. Jefferson/Madison founded the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no connection to either of the current parties using the same name (nor to the National Republicans in the interim, which also used it). NOR is there any connection between the Federalists, who were history a lifetime before the Republicans, founded in 1854.

First Democratic Party POTUS candy: Martin vanBuren, 1836.
First Republican Party POTUS candy: John C. Frémont, 1856.

Imo its safe to consider Jefferson, Lincoln and TR as "progressive."

Also kind of problematic since both Jefferson and Lincoln were dead and buried before Progressivism began around 1890. Now, you did use the lowercase P which opens up all kinds of cans o' worms, but as a noun we're looking at roughly 1890-1920.

But again the only way Trump gets close is as a bug splat.

That's true. Many people are saying that. It was a damn clever post.

With respect that's untrue. Jackson democracy was the direct descendant of Jefferson's party, and the forerunner to today's democrats ... although they are perhaps closer to FDR's democrats.
History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia

Jackson never ran with a party. His body of supporters, which were not organized as such, were simply called "Jacksonians", which doesn't really address who they go with after Jackson. His detractors weren't organized either; they were simply ever-so-creatively called "anti-Jacksonians", which ditto. After Jackson was elected twice, vanBuren organized the body of Jacksonians into the Democratic Party, which name was first used in 1834 (during Jackson's last term), and in the same period the anti-Jacksonians were also organized into a formal party (mainly by Henry Clay) called the National Republicans (1830) which evolved just a few years later into the Whigs. So VanBuren was the first POTUS candidate to run under the Democratic Party label and win, in 1836. And the first Whig candidates ran the same year; there were four of them among which were Daniel Webster and William Henry Harrison who became the first Whig President in 1840.

There is no direct descendancy from the Jefferson Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democrats, any more than there is one from the Whigs to the modern Republicans. There were migrations of large contingents (but not the entire body) of the older party to (eventually) the newer one but such migration was not universal to the extent that an existing party changed its name. I know some partisan Democratic historians like to connect their bridge to Jefferson but they're being disingenuous to hitch onto the Jefferson star ship (hee hee I kill me); the fact is it was Van Buren who organized it into a party, before which it wasn't one. Apparently they're trying to make the organization appear older than it is, seemingly under the impression that that would be a good thing. Then we've got Special Ed on this site who periodically checks in to inform us that TJ founded the modern Republican Party, which is a neat trick for a guy who was dead for 28 years. He too seems unaware that nobody has exclusive licence on the name "republican".

None of the above however are to be confused with or related to the American Republican Party (1843) which soon renamed itself the Native American Party, then the American Party, and is commonly historied as the Know Nothings.

There used to be a whole lotta parties goin' on. Van Buren later ran again for POTUS for the Free Soil Party.

Fun fact: The Whigs got two Presidents elected, both of whom died (of natural causes) in office -- Harrison (1840) and Taylor (1848). Taylor had been the father-in-law of Jefferson Davis.

I agree sort of. Not detail, but in the overall. The civil war was a midpoint in American History between the founders and the end of the cold war ... or the American Century.

Until the civil war the dominant issue of the Federalists and the Whigs was central banking. In a sense that was the gop too, and FDR reveled in capital's hatred of him. But after Lincoln used the federal army to take private property and suspend habeus to wage a total economic war of devastating the civil government of the seceding states, the issues of the federal govt having power to finance transcontinental railroads and canals in foreign countries became quaint.

But our two party system has always pitted those with the money v. "common man."

Today's gop may be something a little different.

I don't really disagree with any of that; I'm simply drawing distinctions between historical political parties that some historical revisionists would like to blur. I think causations and beginnings are crucial. It's the same distinction I'm drawing when some wag tries to sell that "Democrats founded the Klan" blarney.

But our two party system has always pitted those with the money v. "common man."

Aye, the classic dichotomy. Again agreed, and we could extend that retroactively to before there were parties, in the conflict between the Liberals and the Royalists that eventually founded this country.

And in that Civil War period mentioned that then-new Duopoly was if anything in the opposite corners from where it is now, a magnetic polar shift having taken place at the turn of the century with as you mentioned the Progressives and with the Populist movement, coupled with the Republican Party's embrace of the wealthy and big business at the same time embodied by McKinley and Taft supplanting the last vestige of the "commoners" represented by (T) Roosevelt in between them.

 

[Moonglow]

T is too big for rushmore. Hes gonna need his own mountain.

in China.

 

[Pogo]

T is too big for rushmore. Hes gonna need his own mountain.

in China.

I thought the usual tagline was "in bed".