No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For a couple generations the two parties have behaved very differently in choosing leaders (that COULD be changing, but it hasn't...YET). The Dems have always been more of a "wait your turn, you'll get your chance if you stay loyal to the party" but the conservative base of the Republican Party has been conditioned for at least 50 years to reward the "throw the bums out" message. Part of that is a hatred for 'career politicians' and the "Establishment" and everything about government in general. I guess the benefits of that are you constantly have fresh blood, but it also means your leadership is constantly falling from grace.

    Reagan Republicans made Rockefeller Republicans go extinct...and then the Gingrich generation of 1994 largely shoved aside the Reaganites (Go back and look at his early career, Gingrich was a loud critic of Reagan on a bunch of issues). Gingrich and a lot of his closest cohorts fell as Bush & the Neocons rose...and then the Bushies got thrown out in favor of the Tea party...and now Trump has either eliminated or tamed all of the biggest Tea Party names.

    Trump and his biggest sycophants will fall in time too. There's a constant upheaval among conservatives, an endless war to preserve "real America". The shelf life for a Republican before you're viewed as "Establishment" is extremely short.


    • DSL, I think your view of conservatism - at the least the one you're post appears to lay out - is superficial. I do think that the picture of the Republican Party you paint, though, is accurate. Not sure you intended to link the two but it seems to me you did.

      I don't think the Ds have had any less of a shift in what they stand for than the Rs. It seems that you're suggesting that and that whoever represents the R party in a presidential election is a reflection of an ever changing Republican party political philosophy. In contrast, it would seem you'd argue that the Democratic party has had a stable, unchanging political philosophy. I don't think that is accurate if that is what you are saying.

      Both liberalism and conservatism in the US - forget about talking about this in the context of European history - over decades and probably going back to the early 1800s have shifted to reflect contemporary thought in each of them. Hence, in modern times, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and now Trump represent starkly different views of conservatism. Likewise, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton .... and I'd have to include the current crop of D presidential candidates, represent the same kind of divergent views of liberalism.

      I do think an argument can be advanced that there are common threads of thinking in both political and social philosophies of the two parties that span all the presidencies and remain somewhat and equally constant within both political parties.
      On Harbaugh's expectations for M football in 2015 (NFL NETWORK): ?We'd rather be about it than talk about it."


      • Yeah, you could definitely author a retort detailing the meteoric rise of "The Squad" and how the most famous D rep primaried the old guard and conclude with something like there's a constant upheaval among democrats, at least on the coasts, in an endless war against America and foundational American principles. That's pretty easy to defend.
        Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
        Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.


        • Originally posted by Ghengis Jon View Post
          And speaking of sin, lets talk about Trump's morality for the benefit of his evangelical base. Both you and I have been married for many, many years. We've both been blessed with a wife who is a life partner for the long haul. Think about your wedding vow as I think about mine. I would expect that Trump took essentially the same vow. You know, in a church, swearing to an oath to your spouse and Almighty God to love, honor, respect and give eternal faithfulness. A sworn oath before God. Trump is a serial adulterer, lies about it, has children not with his wife, tries to buy silence with NDAs, and lies about it some more. How can the evangelical base tolerate someone who tells God to "fuck off, you don't matter, I don't care about my oath" on a regular and reoccurring basis?

          The biggest problem of Trump is for America, not the Dems. We have an amoral, narcissistic pathological liar in the White House who puts everything including national interest beneath his own personal financial interests. He has no problem with extorting foreign nations who are under invasion by America's enemies for PERSONAL political gain. His actions are anti-American, anti-rule of law, and anti-God.

          Americans aren't stupid? I used to think that (in general) but not since Trump. How can roughly 40% of the electorate support such an anti-American individual? Blind tribalism certainly accounts for some of it, but I don't see much more than willing stupidity accounting for the rest.

          The Dems have no one to blame but themselves. The two presidential candidates they had to decide between for their candidate in 2016 were Bernie and Hillary. A shit sandwich should have beaten Trump. Now America suffers for that lack of choice. But it doesn't mean that America has to tolerate the criminal activities of the President. Trump needs to be removed from office and no amount of rationalizing by his minions will change that. He simply needs to go away. Trade a pardon for a resignation. He needs to go.
          Thanks for the response, Jon. I think you know that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

          I would not consider it a disaster if Trump was impeached and removed from office. I agree there are a lot of things about the man that I find distasteful, and offensive. I also believe he is pandering to the evangelical Christians, in an effort to keep votes. He has a lot of big-name evangelicals fooled about what he believes. For instance, he is pro-gay marriage. That's considered abominable among evangelicals, but yet many continue to support him. Without getting into a full-scale Sunday School lesson, he's also walking dangerously close to biblical prophecies regarding the son of perdition, as described in the Book of Daniel. But I won't get into that in this forum.

          For me, I nearly stayed home on Election Day 2016. I had seen the polls on TV, and I, along with many others, pretty much gave in to the idea that Hillary was going to win, and there was nothing we could do about it. So, as I sat at home, sipping on my Maxwell House coffee, my son came home on his lunch break, and said, "Hey pops, lets go vote". I him-hawed around a bit, and told him I was thinking about not going at all. He said, "Well, don't gripe if you don't vote". So, I went and voted. When the ballot was placed in front of me, I just could not justify coloring in the box next to Hillary's name. I remembered all the times the Clintons claimed to be moral people, and I also remember her talking about people being 'deplorable' if they didn't agree with her. No matter how I stretched my beliefs, I just couldn't vote for her. So, I held my nose, and I voted for Trump.

          Basically, I'm still holding my nose, because even though he's made some political moves I agree with, the stench from the other things that you mentioned, almost cancel that out.

          I think had Joe Biden been the other choice, I could have done that. Nowadays, I am sincerely concerned that Mr. Biden has health issues that he needs to address, and disqualify him from being President. And I see nobody in the current Democrat clown show that I could vote for. So, I guess this time, I'd stay home.

          Finally, I don't wear a MAGA hat. I don't own a MAGA hat. Nobody in my family owns a MAGA hat. I have no desire to obtain one. But it I'm an idiot for voting for Trump, then so be it. I think my heart was in the right place at the time.

          On the other hand, you have different fingers


          • I think the Republican Party overthrows its leadership with more frequency than the Democratic party, yes. That may be changing, although "the Squad" has accomplished jack shit thus far. But I think I'm right in saying Dem leadership changes more slowly over time. And I think the general hostility towards government within the conservative movement fosters faster turnover than within liberalism.


            • image_7649.jpg


              • Yeah, sooner or later the the more honest Republicans are going to have to simply say "look, it was an abuse of power, but it all worked out ok in the end and it's not serious enough to impeach him for it". A few Republicans are already there. I don't agree with that argument but it's a reasonable, legitimate, non-hack rationale.

                I don't get and will bash the characterization that there's nothing wrong with the President asking a foreign government to investigate his domestic political foes, nevermind bribing/extorting them to do it.


                • There are so many things wrong with it but if you fear the MAGAs you will wear red suspenders if they tell you to.


                  • "Everyone has their own impression of what truth is" -- Mark Meadows


                    • The GOP staff attorney asking the questions now seems like he's embarrassed to be asking such stupid shit


                      • President Shit-for-brains now risks being referred to as President Perjury.


                        “Let us remember that all American citizens are brothers of a common country, and should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal feeling.” - Abraham Lincoln


                        • And in other news, DOJ seems to have very quietly admitted they have no case against Andrew McCabe


                          The Justice Department suggested in a filing Wednesday that it had no immediate plans to prosecute former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying it would no longer try to keep documents related to Mr. McCabe from being publicly released because of an ongoing enforcement proceeding.

                          A federal judge had given the Justice Department a deadline of this week to disclose

                          A federal grand jury met in September to consider charges against Mr. McCabe without issuing an indictment, in a sign the case against him could be in jeopardy.



                          • The DC Circuit has ruled against Trump, for the second time, in his fight to block access to his tax returns. Once again the Supreme Court is his last hope and there's no guarantee they will see a Constitutional issue worth their time here.



                            • Everyone really ought to know the names of these two. This is the husband-wife lawyer duo of Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing. They appear on Fox almost nightly on one program or another. One of their clients is the exile Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who has been stuck in Austria for years fighting extradition charges to the United States. They and Firtash employed Parnas & Furman, the same Ukrainian pals of Giuliani now under indictment. John Solomon a quote-unquote "reporter" that Crashcourse is fond of citing, has been exposed to have basically been fed whatever crap DiGenova & Toensing wanted him to print. Firtash was also a business partner of Paul Manafort, it should be noted.

                              These people are either lunatics or wildly outlandish con-men. George Soros controls most of the State Department! George Soros gives the FBI its orders!


                              • Wow. After being summoned to the White House and forced to meet with Erdogan, Lindsey Graham just single-handedly blocked recognition of the Armenian Genocide on the Senate floor