I don’t actually care all that much what people I don’t know want to think of me. I try to comport myself online as I do in normal life – thought sometimes the anonymity makes it too easy to do otherwise – but if someone doesn’t like me because of what I wrote, well, it isn’t like I have to live near them or work with them or whatnot.
Who is talking about locking anyone up?
Take a step back for a second – you’ve portrayed yourself as someone who has no time for the personal attacks on conservatives that you believe are endemic to this board. And then after a short period of time, you start making personal comments like this?
Where the fuck are these “quite a lot of Republicans that do not support everything Donald Trump stands for or does,” and their representatives in Congress, because a cursory look over the voting records for the last couple of years shows a pretty consistent party line support for Trump’s agenda, even when it is against general GOP principles. Donald Trump was selected by the Republican party as their leader, and the House and Senate, both of which have current Republican majorities, have falling in line. There could be “good Republicans” who actually stand up for their principles, but they are not in plain view. Or is the story that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are just saving up their political capital for some rainy day resistance?
Guilty of what? She used a private e-mail server for government communications, which is a violation that the FBI investigated and the Department of Justice declined to prosecute, both because they deemed it not a significant security lapse nor outside the very common practice of using private e-mail accounts. It was obtuse, entitled, and short-sighted of her to do so (and her explanation for doing so despite advice to contrary shows a willful lack of regard for following government regulations) but it isn’t a “LOCK HER UP!” offense. Whitewater, Benghazi, and the questionable use of the Clinton Foundation have all been investigated and found to be without sufficient basis for prosecution. Benghazi in particular—the neoconservative casus belli—has been investigated by the FBI, five House committees, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Select Committee, and Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, with not enough evidence of any personal wrongdoing by Clinton to warrant a jaywalking ticket.
Now, Hillary Clinton and her husband have do some shady things, but in the words of conservative commentator P.J. O’Rourke, “[Hillary Clinton being elected to the presidency] is the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters." The biggest real offense Hillary has committed against the public good was tacitly denying the claims of women who accused her husband of sexual advances and assaults, which is something Trump himself can only hint around about because of his own direct history and multiple allegations.
So, again, exactly what crimes should Hillary Clinton be put on crime for?
The main thing I’ve seen a lot of conservatives talk about wrt Hillary and a crime she could be persecuted is her security violations. Basically, if you are a low level schmucky and you violated security in a similar way to Hillary you would go to jail, or at a minimum, lose your clearance and your job. That’s true enough as far as it goes. Of course, in my own experience, I can give plenty of anecdotes about higher level officials violating security in similar ways and not going to jail, so to me there is a systemic issue, especially with appointed political officials and security. Hillary is simply another high level ass who did what she wanted wrt security, and if you are going to lock her up you’d probably be locking up a hell of a lot of other elected and appointed officials as well.
Oh I meant that more as in a general democratic sense - if they don’t get outside their bubble of “all republicans are evil” they will continue to lose and it is unfortunate because they have plenty of great points.
For example I am sick to fucking death of environment being a partisan issue - we should all want clean water and air to breathe and I have no clue why Repubs fight that. I miss the environmental conservative side of conservative.
They fight it because their benefactors are heavily invested in businesses that want to roll back environmental regulations. Many Democrats (including Hillary Clinton) have their own problems with dark money campaign donors influencing policy in ways that are opposed to the public interest, but with Republicans it is a universal problems to the point that John McCain was coerced into shutting the hell up about it because of how much it upset the GOP mainline.
Precisely. Lying about your argument. Ad-hominem attacks. Whining to the mods as a an organized group. Getting you banned. That’s how the echo chamber stays an echo chamber.
People on my brother’s branch of the fam, especially his daughters, are vocal about their support of Trump. Rational? Nope, especially since the older one agrees with Franklin Graham that Trump is keeping us safe from nuke wars with North Korea, would never force her to vaccinate her kids, is a great businessman, and not nearly as much of a womanizer as Hillary is (yes, the niece actually posted this). She also believes that Paul Ryan is correct in saying that prayer is the answer to mass shooting.
At least some of the rest of the fam is more sensible.
:rolleyes: This place is pretty much an “echo chamber” not just on the general unfitness of Donald Trump for high office but also on such topics as the shape of the earth, the lack of objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, and the overall validity of climate science.
There are some things that elicit near-unanimous agreement not because the people agreeing with them constitute an unthinking hive mind, but because the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that they’re true.
What would it take for you to stop supporting the Republican party? Where is your line where the negatives outweigh the positives? Now that you have a tax cut and a Republican nominated for the Supreme Court is there anything, anything, that would convince you that maybe the Republican party, especially its base voters, does not deserve your support.
First note that in America, ‘liberals’ has become a dirty word meaning someone who wants to ban guns, ban religion, and force parents to raise their children in a gender-neutral way.
And ‘conservative’ means someone who hates the idea of regulating pollution, and wants to transfer as much wealth from the poor to the rich as possible. The Mods really should change thread title to replace “conservatives” with “people who called themselves conservative back in the Rational Era.”
Here was your strawman post:
How about if I wrote:
Democrats, the good ones, believe in all individuals pursuing their interests but still cooperating to advance society. Repubs care only about personal greed — that’s why they’re unconcerned about environmental damage that will affect only the next generation, uninterested in foregoing luxuries to help feed people from other ethnic groups etc.
Is my strawman more exaggerated than your strawman? Sure! Was yours nevertheless a pretentious strawman with R’s celebrating liberty and progress while D’s pursue some collectivist drudgery? You betcha!
You cannot elect its leaders and after claim those leaders are not representative of the “platform”.
If Trump is not representative of your views you can claim YOU once were a republican, not that he is not republican. He is 100% representative of the republican party: He was their candidate, is their leader.
The platform you speak of is a fantasy.
You just self-identified as independent.
The point of this thread (I believe) is to demonstrate there are no good republicans left. Nobody wants to vilify YOU. You do not support the racism, corruption and stupidity that is the Trump administration. A republican (by definition) does.
Republican = Trump supporter (by definition)
Someone who liked the republican platform before Trump = Independent.
Let’s get one thing out of the way. This Kavanaugh “thing” was not a trial. it was a review, a JOB INTERVIEW. The trial (for perjury) may come later - maybe.
He hasn’t been formally hit with criminal charges (yet). So, let’s drop the bullshit about “presumption of innocence”. It’s a job interview - which he BLEW.
How many job interviews are there, where you can chose to not answer questions, lie repeatedly, cry, yell, and make threats?
He blew it. I wouldn’t hire him to scrub my toilet.
I think he’s a lying, perjuring, raping, piece of shit. If this is how he acts sober, well HOLY SHIT I don’t want to see him drunk.