Wake up, Republicans. Your party stands for all the wrong things now.

  
Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  89 comments

Wake up, Republicans. Your party stands for all the wrong things now.
We are a long way — more than a half-century — from 1968, much less 1952. The United States is now a diverse, chaotic collection of 330 million people, a country of immigrants and multiculturalism that is growing less white every day. It is not some gauzy Shangri-La of suburban bliss that never existed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T




He bet that Republican voters didn’t really care about free trade or mutual security, or about the environment or Europe, much less deficits. He rebranded kindness and compassion as “PC” and elevated division and bigotry as the admirable goals of just being politically incorrect. Trump didn’t make Americans more racist; he just normalized the resentments that were simmering in many households.   Wake up, Republicans. Your party stands for all the wrong things now.

JANUARY 01, 2020

6BIGHABCCMI6VMBU3Z64FNIZTM.jpg&w=150 President Trump at his Dec. 18 rally in Michigan. (Brittany Greeson/For The Washington Post)

Stuart Stevens is a writer and GOP political consultant who is working with a political action committee that backs Bill Weld for president.

One way to find out: As you are out and about marking the new year, it is likely you will come across a Republican to whom you can pose the question, preferably after a drink or two, as that tends to work as truth serum: “Look, I was just wondering: What’s the Republican Party all about these days? What does it, well, stand for?”

I’m betting the answer is going to involve a noun, a verb and either “socialism” or “Democrats.” Republicans now partly define their party simply as an alternative to that other party, as in, “I’m a Republican because I’m not a Democrat.”

In a long-forgotten era — say, four years ago — such a question would have elicited a very different answer. Though there was disagreement over specific issues, most Republicans would have said the party stood for some basic principles: fiscal sanity, free trade, strong on Russia, and that character and personal responsibility count. Today it’s not that the Republican Party has forgotten these issues and values; instead, it actively opposes all of them.

Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party, the deficit doesn’t matter party, the Russia is our ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. Yes, it’s President Trump’s party now, but it stands only for what he has just tweeted.

A party without a governing theory, a higher purpose or a clear moral direction is nothing more than a cartel, a syndicate that exists only to advance itself. There is no organized, coherent purpose other than the acquisition and maintenance of power.

This is a sad fall. In Ronald Reagan’s America, being born an American was to win’s life lottery; in Donald Trump’s America, it makes you a victim, a patsy, a chump.

Trump didn’t hijack the GOP and bend it to his will. He did something far easier: He looked at the party, saw its fault lines and then offered himself as a pure distillation of accumulated white grievance and anger. He bet that Republican voters didn’t really care about free trade or mutual security, or about the environment or Europe, much less deficits. He rebranded kindness and compassion as “PC” and elevated division and bigotry as the admirable goals of just being politically incorrect. Trump didn’t make Americans more racist; he just normalized the resentments that were simmering in many households. In short, he let a lot of long-suppressed demons out of the box.

This paranoid element in the party has existed for decades, since the Joe McCarthy era, when some Republicans who saw dark forces threatening the country argued that only radical action by “true” Americans — white, Christian, conservative — could safeguard the nation.  Barry Goldwater  revived the theme in 1964, and  George Wallace  won five states with it as a third-party candidate in 1968. I worked in every Republican presidential campaign from 1996 through 2012 and assumed that those guys had long been vanquished and that optimism and inclusion had prevailed. I was wrong.

This impeachment moment and all that has led to it should signal a day of reckoning. A party that has as its sole purpose the protection and promotion of its leader, whatever he thinks, is not on a sustainable path. Can anyone force a change? I’m not optimistic. Trump won with  46.1 percent  of the vote in 2016, while Mitt Romney lost with  47.2 percent  in 2012; no wonder Republicans have convinced themselves that the path to victory and power lies with angry division. Having ignored the warning signs for years myself, I know the seductive lure of believing what you prefer while ignoring the obvious truth.

Which is this: We are a long way — more than a half-century — from 1968, much less 1952. The United States is now a diverse, chaotic collection of  330 million people , a country of immigrants and multiculturalism that is growing less white every day. It is not some gauzy Shangri-La of suburban bliss that never existed.

I’d like to say that I believe the party I spent so many years fighting for could rise to the challenge of this moment. But there have been too many lies for too long.


Article is Locked by Moderator

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party, the deficit doesn’t matter party, the Russia is our ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. Yes, it’s President Trump’s party now, but it stands only for what he has just tweeted.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party, the deficit doesn’t matter party, the Russia is our ally party, and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. Yes, it’s President Trump’s party now, but it stands only for what he has just tweeted.

At least so says Stuart Stevens who by the way is drum roll please:

Stuart Stevens is a writer and GOP political consultant who is working with a political action committee that backs Bill Weld for president.

Sorry JR, even you should have been able to see that coming.

I give your vitriolic hatred of President Trump a thumbs up for the attempt, but it's still a loser.

TRUMP 2020

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    3 weeks ago

You have no point.  But you know that already. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

His point is that the writer is just another Rockefeller leftist Republican. They are just as much enemies of our Republic as the Democrats 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

So the only people that can justifiably criticize Trump are those on his side?

That makes absolutely no sense. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1    3 weeks ago

o is working with a political action committee that backs Bill Weld for president.

Bill Weld, the Clinton Supporter. 

Says it all. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
They are just as much enemies of our Republic as the Democrats 

So...people who don't live in your exact political realm are your enemies?  How limiting that must be in regard to your pastoral duties.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

The head Republican isn't exactly user friendly.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
Bill Weld, the Clinton Supporter.  Says it all. 

Let's add this - Bill Weld was a (left leaning) Libertarian before he decided to become a "Republican". He also endorsed Rino Romney in the 2008 primary but endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 General Election. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 weeks ago
You have no point.  But you know that already. 

If you can't grasp the concept that the mouthpiece for his political opponent will of course do all in his power to denigrate President Trump, there is in fact no help for you.  But that he denigrates President Trump, makes him your new found hero.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.9  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

Not my point. It’s the nature of the criticism.  They are mad because Trump refuses to play the Establishment Republicans game which is little different from the Democrats 

we who support Trump reject both parties

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party

Trump has no character and the "new" Republicans revere him, so obviously they are the "character doesnt count" party.  No argument possible. 

, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party,

Trump never takes responsibility, he looks for flunkies and fall guys. Again, no argument. 

the deficit doesn’t matter party,

Republicans used to be concerned with the national debt.  Their bad. The concern only applies when someone other than Trump is is office. 

the Russia is our ally party,

Trump has made quite a show of saying Putin is right about this or that, and American experts on the given subject are wrong.  Republicans now must accept that Russia has the US best interest at heart. 

and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party. 

All you need to see that this is the Trumpster mind set is read NT every day. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 weeks ago
, so obviously they are the "character doesnt count" party. 

Character hasn't counted since Bill Clinton beat George Bush.  Democrats were quite open about that when Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstructing justice. They were more than happy to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has been walking the fine line of criminality since since she first entered public life, and who was called a congenital liar by  the New York Times 25 years ago, just last election. The idea that Democrats care about character is simply absurd...

The rest of your examples apply to the Democratic Party just as well. The idea that the Democrats stand for anything other than obtaiming power and using it to keep themselves rich and powerful is simply absurd.  Hunter Biden is what the Democrats do with power.  Take from productive people and give it to family and friends. It's the best grift going. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Trump is a walking encyclopedia and factory of character malfunctions, psychological aberrations, moral lapses, and intellectual deficiencies. He has virtually every immoral , devious and uncaring fault of character ever ascribed to mankind. 

His supporters tactic to combat those sad facts is to array Trump against every Democrat since the Civil War.  Trump lies like this Democrat, cheats like a another one, stumbles on his thoughts like a third, and cheats on his wife like yet another.  It takes a whole history of Democratic bad behavior, across decades if not centuries, to equal the shitshow produced by one present day orange Republican. 

512

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Sean,

Let's be honest about things. 

Character hasn't counted since Bill Clinton beat George Bush. 

Character was never an issue during that election. 

Democrats were quite open about that when Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstructing justice.

You seem to forget 4+ years of the BS of Whitewater. They got him on being a cheating husband who lied to cover his ass. Wow how unusual for a cheating husband. We have progressed so far from there. Now it's OK to have been a cheating husband. 

happy to nominate Hillary Clinton, who has been walking the fine line of criminality since since she first entered public life, and who was called a congenital liar by  the New York Times 25 years ago, just last election.

Criminality? Come on Sean. I'll give you liar.

The idea that Democrats care about character is simply absurd...

I doubt either party has the high ground there.

Both parties are about seizing power. That is why they would never allow a viable third party. They don't want any competition. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Criminality? Come on Sean. I'll give you liar.

Perrie, do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton is a liar anywhere near on the level of Donald Trump? 

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.5  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
BS of Whitewater.

You keep posting this and it's still false, People went to jail for Whitewater, Zero for Russian collusion. White warer convictions,

And amazingly enough, the day after the statue of limitations ran out, Hillary's billing records for her fraud of Whitewater suddenly appear, Not at the law firm she worked at, nut hidden in the Whitehouse. And people wonder why she isn't trusted.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/06/us/elusive-papers-of-law-firm-are-found-at-white-house.html

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

A different kind of liar. Trump lies even when he doesn't have to. Hillary was calculated. But then again, I am sure over half the state dept had liars in it, in any administration. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @1.2.5    3 weeks ago
You keep posting this and it's still false, People went to jail for Whitewater, Zero for Russian collusion. White warer convictions,

And here's why. They spent $70 million on Whitewater, and you know that the real person they were after was Clinton. 

And amazingly enough, the day after the statue of limitations ran out, Hillary's billing records for her fraud of Whitewater suddenly appear, Not at the law firm she worked at, nut hidden in the Whitehouse. And people wonder why she isn't trusted.

And we are talking about Bill not Hilary. Second this was what was determined:

The memorandum said that Mrs. Clinton had played a far greater role in the dismissal of employees of the White House travel office than the Administration has acknowledged.

Not much given how much Ken Starr went after them. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.8  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.7    3 weeks ago
They spent $70 million on Whitewater, and you know that the real person they were after was Clinton. 

So there is a dollar amount for convictions, I have never seen you post BS about russian collusion,  they spent 32 million, convicted zero for russian collusion and only did it to go after Trump.  this meets all your criteria and then some to call BS.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.9  XXJefferson#51  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted] TRUMP-Pence 2020!  Keep America Great!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.10  XXJefferson#51  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.11  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

You believe Sean wasn’t being honest in his post?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
Quite the sweeping generalization laced article you’ve got seeded here.

That is hilarious, coming from you.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
haracter was never an issue during that election

Wait, what?  The WWII hero vs the draft dodger who constantly cheated on his wife? Of course it was.  It was one of Bush's major talking points.  Here's CNN summarizing the four debates in '92:

"All four debates were held during a nine-day period, turning them into a televised "mini-series," that attracted a large viewership, including the largest audience ever to watch a presidential debate.

"T he major themes included trustworthiness and character, the nation's economic problems and the need for change"

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1992/index.shtml

You seem to forget 4+ years of the BS of Whitewater

So the fact that the Governor of Arkansas and other Clinton allies went to jail means Democrats care about character? What point you are trying to make is beyond me.

Now it's OK to have been a cheating husband. 

yes, Democrats have been very clear about that for 30 years. They won the character doesn't matter debate. Hypocritical of them to pretend it does now. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.14  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

I do her whole life is a lie.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.15  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.13    3 weeks ago

It's really a joke then on top of that some  lie about what Clinton did or was impeached for pretending he was impeached for a blow job. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.16  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    3 weeks ago
Republicans are now officially the character doesn’t count party Trump has no character and the "new" Republicans revere him, so obviously they are the "character doesnt count" party.  No argument possible. 

I'm Independent and am very happy with the success he has generated for America.

, the personal responsibility just proves you have failed to blame the other guy party, Trump never takes responsibility, he looks for flunkies and fall guys. Again, no argument. 

When did Obama or any other politician take responsibility?   Did Obama post Benghazi or was a video blamed?  Did Obama post Fast and Furious or was a stopped Bush operation resurrected and blamed?   Did Obama acknowledge his "red line" or blame the WORLD for saying that?

the deficit doesn’t matter party, Republicans used to be concerned with the national debt.  Their bad. The concern only applies when someone other than Trump is is office. 

Deficits most certainly do matter.  Unfortunately, I'm not in office to do anything about it other than let my representatives know how I feel about them.  

the Russia is our ally party, Trump has made quite a show of saying Putin is right about this or that, and American experts on the given subject are wrong.  Republicans now must accept that Russia has the US best interest at heart. 

Give the Russia bullshit a rest already.  Trump has put sanctions on them that are crippling their economy.  Oh, and Trump is doing what Obama never did...   providing Ukraine LETHAL AID to repel Russian aggression.

and the I’m-right-and-you-are-human-scum party.  All you need to see that this is the Trumpster mind set is read NT every day. 

Hardly JR.  That is entirely in the mindset of the Trump and Trump supporter haters.  If we don't surrender and capitulate to the deranged Trump haters of the world, we are simply scum, or NAZIS, or KKK, of Islamaphobes, or (put in whatever denigrating term the left continually uses to try and describe those that don't think in lock step with them.).

JR your continual denigration of President Trump and any that support him are doing more to gain support for him than you can possibly imagine.  I need to thank you for that.  It will make my endeavors to get him re-elected that much easier this November.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2.17  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @1.2.15    3 weeks ago
It's really a joke then on top of that some  lie about what Clinton did or was impeached for pretending he was impeached for a blow job.

True.  They forget that he was impeached and disbarred for perjury.  Oh those minor technical difficulties some love to forget.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.18  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.17    3 weeks ago

He lied in case and paid restitution to the victim for exposing himself and as far a Monica he had sex with a unpaid intern while at work that should be enough to get anyone fired.If Bill Clinton would have had sex with a paid subordinate he could have been sued for sexual harassment.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Criminality? Come on Sean. I'll give you liar.

I missed this earlier.

Yeah, criminality. They drew up indictments of her during Whitewater, but she wasn't charged out of misplaced deference to her position as First Lady. she's walked the line of criminality from Whitewater, to Travelgate, to taking millions in donations she wasn't supposed to (from Russian oligarchs, no less), to violating espionage laws and only being let off because James Comey rewrote the statute to avoid indicting her etc... Pretty much her entire career has been about pushing the envelope of legal behavior.

She's avoided indictment, but really only by luck. Honestly I'm surprised anyone would dispute that she's walked the tightrope of legal/illegal behavior.  There's a thirty year track record of it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.20  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    3 weeks ago
Yeah, criminality. They drew up indictments of her during Whitewater, but she wasn't charged out of misplaced deference to her position as First Lady.

I checked this out, although incitements were drawn, there was not enough evidence found by the grand jury and dismissed. It was not done out of kindness since Ken Starr was out for blood. And in 2016 a conservative group tried to have the hearings of the grand jury produced and they were nixed. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-whitewater-indictment-drafts-229093

The Clintons were never charged with any crime. Fifteen other people were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who resigned from office. [44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy#Subpoena_of_the_president_and_his_wife

Sorry, but no one is that lucky. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.20    3 weeks ago
, and it is just not true

What, specifically did I say that isn't true?  

 there was not enough evidence found by the grand jury and dismissed.

That's not true. 

And no one gets by with 30+ years in the public eye being a criminal'

First off, of course some  do. Do you think our system is infallible? 

Second, I said she walks the fine line of being a criminal. I didn't claim she was a criminal. Are you claiming what I actually wrote is wrong?

he Clintons were never charged with any crime

Where did I say they were?   Although Bill Clinton avoided prosecution when he left office by agreeing to pay a large fine and giving  up his law licence. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.21    3 weeks ago
What, specifically did I say that isn't true?  

That they let the indictment go because she was the first lady. They let it go on lack of evidence. 

First off, of course some  do. Do you think our system is infallible? 

She has been looked at by every conservative group for criminal actions in her 30 years.... Even Al Capone couldn't get away with every aspect of his criminal behavior. 

Second, I said she walks the fine line of being a criminal. I didn't claim she was a criminal. Are you claiming what I actually wrote is wrong?

Yup. You gave your opinion of what was her fine line. Again, if there was something there,  it would have come out.

Although Bill Clinton avoided prosecution when he left office by agreeing to pay a large fine and giving  up his law licence. 

And really, what did they catch Bill on? Something that Trump has done, been sued for divorce twice. The only difference between the two of them is one did it while he was in office and one did it before office and of course no one is looking into his sexual conduct like Ken Starr. And if you think Trump would have done anything different from Bill, then you are being unrealistic. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.22    3 weeks ago
was the first lady. They let it go on lack of evidence. 

No, the prosecutors thought they had enough quite enough evidence for her actions during Whitewater, they just thought the optics were bad. For travel gate, the prosecutor said she lied under oath but wasn't worth prosecuting. There's been so many times she's been documented lying to investigators and engaging in dubious behavior  , I know it's hard to keep track off.  

. Even Al Capone couldn't get away with every aspect of his criminal behavior. 

Al Capone wasn't in government. 

Do you think every criminal has been caught? Do you think LBJ, for one, ever committed a crime? 

Again, if there was something there,  it would have come out.

Fine. You obviously believe it's also wrong to suggest Donald Trump has ever even come close to walking the line of engaging in criminal activity either.  Donald and Hillary are pure as the driven snow. All that evidence that Hillary committed crimes can just be waved away because apparently no one should actually pay attention to facts or the statements of numerous prosecutors and law enforcement officials.     

This is beyond the pale of ridiculousness. That Hillary Clinton engaged in behavior that was on the border of being criminal, even if you don't think it crossed into actual criminal behavior, is about the least controversial opinion one could have. To claim that's she never come close to breaking the law, with all the evidence from multiple investigations out there, is simply absurd. I honestly can't believe you, or any person not paid by Hillary Clinton, would argue that.  

And really, what did they catch Bill on? 

He perjured himself numerous times  and obstructed justice. He was going to jail until he reached an agreement with Robert Ray.

difference between the two of them is one did it while he was in office and one did it before office 

Bullshit. Plain and simple.  Please stop gas lighting the forum. CLinton perjured himself under oath. Trump hasn't . Cheating on your wife is not what they "got" Clinton on.  He lied and tried to get other people to lie under oath. That's why he reached an agreement to avoid prosecution. When Trump does that, you  can make that comparison.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.24  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.23    3 weeks ago
Bullshit. Plain and simple.  Please stop gas lighting the forum.

Right back at you.

Trump has been making agreements to avoid prosecution since he started working for his father, took over the family business and "avoided" renting to non white peoples.

What was the most recent out of court settlement, Trump University?

He's currently on a spending spree to wipe out all of Obama's record spending and national debt increases,

and if he somehow gets elected again he will bankrupt us and walk away after 8 years laughing,

having done it once again without losing his personal assets.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.25  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.24    3 weeks ago

Holy shit, trumps were civil not criminal, Bills was Criminal, open a code book and let me know if you need help telling the difference, or quit gaslighting!

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.26  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.24    3 weeks ago

Bankrupt, more gaslighting, listen son, a country that prints its own money can’t go bankrupt, it’s money can be devalued, but by definition can’t go bankrupt.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.27  XXJefferson#51  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.10    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.28  XXJefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.29  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.24    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.30  dennis smith  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.22    3 weeks ago

For a couple of years I thought you were not partisan, now your comments completely support Dems and show no longer bipartisan. Your comments on this article are proof of that. 

When the top of any organization shows that trait, it makes the organization useless.

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.2.31  XXJefferson#51  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.30    3 weeks ago

Nothing new to see here, I’ve felt and believed the same as you do now from my day one here.  I definitely agree with you. 

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.2.32  DRHunk  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.30    3 weeks ago

a non partisan can side with either Dem or Rep depending on the topic. Just because you don't agree with ones point of view on a situation does not mean you can put their entire history in a box and call it one party or the other. 

I myself side with a lot of Democratic social issues, taxes, deficit reductions, better execution and development for regulating gun ownership..etc. But I also agree with some republican trade policies, loosening  of regulations for certain industries, ensuring gun rights as depicted by the second amendment are protected..etc 

I liked Regan, but hated his fiscal policies, Liked 85% of Bush 1, Liked 90% Clinton, Hated everything about Bush 2, Liked about 80% of Obama, Hate Trump as a person, hate his tax cuts because deficit is sky rocketing again and we need to suck it up and get back to some posture where the debt can be reduced, everything else is neutral so far.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.33  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.2.31    3 weeks ago

What's stopping you from hanging out on idiotic conspiracy sites instead, where facts aren't welcome but pseudoscience and lies are welcome?

For as much as you bitch about this place and about Perrie, you sure spend a lot of time here.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2.34  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  katrix @1.2.33    3 weeks ago

Ditto, ditto, ditto and ditto.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.35  r.t..b...  replied to  DRHunk @1.2.32    3 weeks ago
everything else is neutral so far.

Well DR, I t think neutrality is better left to the Swiss. Either you accept the behavior, political or personal, oozing from this administration or you don't...nothing neutral about that. The lines are drawn and the coming election will determine if we are willing to lower the bar even further in the name of partisan expediency or are we able to acknowledge the dysfunction and move on to hopefully bigger and better things. Debt, taxes, and runaway spending are important issues that require serious thought and reasonable debate...but sadly, serious and reasonable debate has become an afterthought in this most toxic of environments where retribution and justification have become the mantra.

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.36  dennis smith  replied to  DRHunk @1.2.32    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.37  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @1.2.33    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.38  katrix  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.37    3 weeks ago
Common sense is needed from both sides and when the top of an organization leans to one side it is up to others to balance the ledger.  

I disagree. The mods are of all different political persuasions and Perrie's personal political views don't seem to affect how people get censored (or not). I personally see a lot more debunked conspiracy theories from those on the right in here, including one of the main moderators.

A certain poster is just pissing in his Wheaties because his preferred sites - which are all Christian dominionist and debunked right-wing conspiracy sites like Infowars - are so blatantly full of shit that they aren't allowed as sources here. And there was a great deal of discussion between any members who were interested when the determination was made of what "list" to use to determine which sites are just too fake to be permitted as sources. It doesn't make intelligent people want to join if they see that crap on the front page. Not that many of our comments do these days ;)

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.39  r.t..b...  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.37    3 weeks ago
to balance the ledger.

This is a venue to express ones' thoughts. If our words do not directly confront another individual in a derogatory manner, it has been allowed to stand. The moderators here do a thankless job in herding the cats that are only too willing to bear their claws, and should be commended for their efforts in providing a forum for us to give our opinions.

Balance is not the objective, nor should it ever be. Let us be thankful for the opportunity to hear a free flow of ideas...hopefully we will always have that opportunity to say our piece and discard others as we choose. You, know...freedom of speech and all that comes with it.

And 'that's all I have to say about that.'

 
 
 
DRHunk
1.2.40  DRHunk  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.35    3 weeks ago

Not sure what your driving at, I said I hate him as a person, that includes his behavior in office. I am neutral on most of his policies and EO's  as they really have negligible effect  in the grand scheme of things. He has not been able to pass anything of real substance yet. I do not like most of his appointments either now that I think about it, but those also have had no real impact yet.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.41  r.t..b...  replied to  DRHunk @1.2.40    3 weeks ago
Not sure what your driving at

No harm, no foul DR, and I'm never one to put words in another posters' mouth. Apologies if that was what my perhaps clunky response to your post elicited.

Just driving home the point that it is difficult to separate the immorality from the policy in this case, at least for me. If his policies are not coming from a point of what is in our collective best interest, they then become what is best for his personal, political interests. A dangerous and sometimes obscure line, but one I think has been crossed... and thus the impending trial. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.42  WallyW  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.30    2 weeks ago
For a couple of years I thought you were not partisan, now your comments completely support Dems and show no longer bipartisan. Your comments on this article are proof of that. 

An independent liberal, to be exact.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.43  JBB  replied to  WallyW @1.2.42    2 weeks ago

Most people are not so simple minded as to see being either conservative or liberal as necessary a bad thing. In fact, most people are conservative in some ways and liberal in others. The far right has done its damndest to turn the concept of liberalism into a bad thing. Yet, it was liberalism brought men out of the dark ages into the renaissance and enlightenment. Even you must admit that was a good thing. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.44  MUVA  replied to  JBB @1.2.43    2 weeks ago

Classic liberalism isn't the same as progressivism or modern liberalism I do agree people are some of both in most cases.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.45  MUVA  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.41    2 weeks ago

Collectivism is the most dangerous of all of the ism's.

 
 
 
JBB
1.2.46  JBB  replied to  MUVA @1.2.45    2 weeks ago

Thanks for an example of what I described!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.2.47  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @1.2.38    2 weeks ago
It doesn't make intelligent people want to join if they see that crap on the front page.

nobody wants to join a site that requires third party permission to talk about something.

as far as "new members go this site's biggest problem is the continued use of the anti american and anti first amendment mbfc  

as long as that mbfc policy continues our population on this site will only shrink.

if this site was honest? "speak your mind" would be changed to:

"speak your mind as long as the mbfc agrees."

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.48  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.2.47    2 weeks ago

If there wasnt a standard to be used here, people like you would be seeding ridiculous conspiracy crap 24/7.  You've already been trying. 

There needs to be a 'guide' to what should be allowed so we dont have QAnon seeds posted here. 

Blame yourself. 

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    3 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  lady in black @2    3 weeks ago

They look sort of empty headed, dont they? 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
2.1.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 weeks ago

No, that would be the domestic opposition to Trump. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

When Republicans were the party of conservative social values, they were criticized and mocked for it. Now they're allegedly not that party and it's a problem?

So is this character thing something people really care about? Because my cynical nature just sees political tribalism that will attack the other side for whatever is available.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @3    3 weeks ago
When Republicans were the party of conservative social values, they were criticized and mocked for it. Now they're allegedly not that party and it's a problem?

It's because, whether they were or weren't the party of conservative social values, they tried to mandate those values for everyone else.  Even now, they are generally the ones who oppose same-sex marriage in the name of "defending the sanctity of marriage", while ignoring their own Trumps and Gingriches.  They love to bring up Anthony Weiner, and ignore their own Dennis Hasterts.

That's a problem.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1    3 weeks ago

I'd really rather see both parties focus more on concepts of government, foreign policy, and economics. I don't think any particular party has ever had a monopoly on values. Good people in either party have always been electable.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I agree.  But the GOP has a history of pandering to values voters by claiming to be the party of family values.  If they embrace for their own members different values than they'd impose on others, they risk comment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

I think that is a realistic comment. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

I am unclear what you mean, Sandy.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

Just that if they ignore the immorality among their own members, especially those who hold office, while simultaneously trying to legislate morality, they'll be called out on it.  And they should be called out on it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

There I agree, too!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

WHO better to teach morality, than the immoral...

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.8  XXJefferson#51  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.9  MUVA  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

I would say some only care about morality when it leads to a political gain it's really lip service at best.Remember it's all about the children as they abort as many as they  possibly can every year.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.10  XXJefferson#51  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.1.11  XXJefferson#51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Republicans should always promote family values, good morals, and support good causes like pro life, pro legitimate Biblical marriage, pro nuclear family, pro that there are only two genders, pro America, that the constitution should be followed as written, and pro religious liberty and the free exercise there of of religious beliefs in every aspect of our lives.  We should oppose the secular progressive agenda as it is America’s greatest domestic enemy.  When Republican/conservatives in elected or appointed office fall seriously enough short of our beliefs and values in their elected or personal lives they should as usually happens either resign or be primaried out of office in disgrace.  Liberals who do such offenses too often get re elected after expore unless there are criminal charges too.  

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.12  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Family values my aunt fanny...you mean like faux christian's cheating on a spouse (you know like the ones that were cheating while demonizing Bill Clinton), making a mistress have an abortion, DUI's, stealing....you sure look at republicans with rose colored glasses.

Pro biblical like wanting to make America into a theocracy...whose is the jerk that wanted a 51st all biblical state.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
When Republican/conservatives in elected or appointed office fall seriously enough short of our beliefs and values in their elected or personal lives they should as usually happens either resign or be primaried out of office in disgrace

An odd admonition given the unwavering support given to the current resident of what he has turned into the offal office. I agree that a primary challenge is in order, particularly when the incumbent is saddled with a deserved impeachment, but even that historic caveat is rendered immaterial in the eyes of his groveling base.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.14  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
pro legitimate Biblical marriage

You mean the marriages where husbands were allowed to rape their wives, little girls were sold to old men, men were instructed by God to rape, enslave and marry little girls of their enemy tribes, widows were forced to marry their husbands' brothers, and men had free rein to have concubines and cheat on their wives?

You have a very odd view of what morality is.

that the constitution should be followed as written

If you cared about the constitution, you wouldn't support Trump and you certainly would stop trying to push your idiotic religious beliefs on everyone else.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.15  katrix  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
 When Republican/conservatives in elected or appointed office fall seriously enough short of our beliefs and values in their elected or personal lives they should as usually happens either resign or

Utter bullshit. You worship Trump and he's one of the most immoral people that exist.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  katrix @3.1.15    3 weeks ago

yea, but....

he serves the best Kool Aid.

Besides, he appoints scumbag judges, lies to us daily, and always put himself above country. What more would we want in a POS potUS ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
Republicans should always promote family values, good morals, and support good causes like pro life, pro legitimate Biblical marriage

In other words, Republicans should establish a pseudo theocracy. Got it.

and pro religious liberty and the free exercise there of of religious beliefs in every aspect of our lives.  

To what end? What if your "free exercise" conflicts with the law or Constitution?

We should oppose the secular progressive agenda as it is America’s greatest domestic enemy.  

*Sigh* Another paranoid sweeping generalization.

When Republican/conservatives in elected or appointed office fall seriously enough short of our beliefs and values in their elected or personal lives they should as usually happens either resign or be primaried out of office in disgrace.  

Sounds like the bar is set quite low.

Liberals who do such offenses too often get re elected after expore unless there are criminal charges too.  

That would be due to the voters then. That's democracy for you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

So, the bottom line is that Republicans have become Democrats?  

According to the author, the Republican Party has become a party of racial grievance, subjective morality, and political expediency.  Doesn't that describe what the Democratic Party has become over the last few decades, too?

The facts are that voters are becoming more politically independent.  People don't care as much about Republicans or Democrats today.

Party Affiliation - Gallup

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @4    3 weeks ago
the Republican Party has become a party of racial grievance, subjective morality, and political expediency.  Doesn't that describe what the Democratic Party has become over the last few decades, too?

Well said. If ever there was a window for a viable third party to rise and represent those who will not defer to, nor condone the rhetoric spewed from either fringe, it is now. The coming election will set the course for the remainder of this century...will we continue down the course of debilitating dysfunction or will we realize the status quo is untenable and will we eventually overcome the partisan rancor and move forward as our system is designed. Only time will tell. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1    3 weeks ago
Well said. If ever there was a window for a viable third party to rise and represent those who will not defer to, nor condone the rhetoric spewed from either fringe, it is now. The coming election will set the course for the remainder of this century...will we continue down the course of debilitating dysfunction or will we realize the status quo is untenable and will we eventually overcome the partisan rancor and move forward as our system is designed. Only time will tell. 

From my arguably limited perspective, the country is ready to change direction.  20th century political promises haven't delivered.  But the country hasn't decided which way it wants to go; the country is only voicing dissatisfaction with the path we are on.

Nothing will change until there is a political debate over the future of the United States.  The political accomplishments of the past don't have any value because the country wants to go another direction.  The country wants to put the 20th century behind us and that will require an ideological competition over ideas for the future.

I think the decision to go another direction has already been made by the public.  Trying to maintain the status quo of the 20th century is a losing proposition.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
Trying to maintain the status quo of the 20th century is a losing proposition.

Agreed. We find ourselves already nearly a quarter of the way through this new Century and the parties in power are at a loss as to how to grow forward. The GOP is clinging to the vestiges of the 50's Eisenhower years and the Dems continue defining the 'big tent' 'how far do we go' conundrum that will always plague them.

Moderation, people...fiscal responsibility and social freedom...such an easy concept to grasp and a formula already written into our Constitution, but somehow perverted by both sides in their self-serving posturing... only hamstringing us all.

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1    3 weeks ago
Well said. If ever there was a window for a viable third party to rise and represent those who will not defer to, nor condone the rhetoric spewed from either fringe, it is now.

No, that time has already passed. We have never had two more hated, vilified, corrupt, POS running for President from the Establishment parties than HRC and Trump. Yet it was never in question that one of the two was going to win. Of course when Trump defied all predictions and won the left lost their collective marbles. The Dems have been trying to impeach him ever since.

Speaking as someone that campaigned for Gary Johnson I was hoping he could get just 10% of the popular vote, so the Libertarian Party would have access to federal funding. It wasn't even close.

I am taking the 3rd party option off the table from this point forward. It will be the lesser of two evils from now on. Considering the Democrats are willing to break all norms, rules, and laws to impeach Trump by any means necessary; I will take the lesser of two evils for the first time since I voted for Bill Clinton second term. That means a straight Republican ticket for the first time ever. 

I know several independents that will be holding their noses and doing the same. Falling about evenly between the Democrats and Republicans.  Good luck in over coming that.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.4  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
Yet it was never in question that one of the two was going to win

And neither one of them would be able to pass the background check that many of us have had to pass for our jobs. Pathetic, isn't it?

I will take the lesser of two evils for the first time since I voted for Bill Clinton second term. That means a straight Republican ticket for the first time ever. 

For me, it will be a straight Dem ticket for the first time ever. I cannot forgive the GOP for refusing to do their job and apply checks and balances to Trump, or for their refusal to be impartial. They're even repeating the debunked conspiracy theories as if they were true, anything to toadie up to Trump. No balls at all. And Trump himself ... well, enough said.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5  sandy-2021492    2 weeks ago

Since this discussion has gone completely off topic to focus on meta, I'll be locking this article.  Anyone who wishes to continue discussing moderation should do so in the appropriate setting, with is Metafied.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


31 visitors