Things Republicans Can Never Again Complain About

Discussion in 'Politics' started by spidergoat, Feb 20, 2017.

  1. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    Let's list all the things Republicans are embracing that they complained about when Democrats did it (or are unprecedented).

    1. Executive orders.
    2. An up or down vote on Supreme Court nominees.
    3. Leaks and hacking.
    4. The Federal Records Act.
    5. Goldman Sachs.
    6. Lying.
    7. Presidential candidates not releasing their tax returns.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Unless you've always said Trump was a RINO.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,447
    Incredibly stupid and petty.

    Hey, just to check: When someone makes this or that point, are you going to try to say you're not a Republican?

    Because, look, this is the thing: A Republican can keep complaining about RINO Trump, but Republicans just elected the RINO Trump, so the question of Trump's RINO status seems to be entirely arbitrary and therefore fallacious.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    Doesn't matter, most Republicans support him, including the congressional leader of the Republicans, Paul Ryan.
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Whatever you say, guys.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It couldn't possibly be that real conservatives either didn't vote for him or did so to stave off HRC Supreme Court nominations and give the Republicans in Congress a chance to do something that won't have a veto announcement before it's out of committee (Ryan can't do much if everything is vetoed). Nor that HRC lost votes of women, blacks, and independents compared to Obama.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    Yeah, but that's has never bothered Republicans. The did the same thing with George Junior. They elected him. They demonstrated/rioted for him in order to influence the election outcome. They supported him for the 8 years he was in office. Right wing radio and TV steadfastly supported him and every cockamamie crony capitalist piece of legislation he and is Republican congresses passed. They weren't fazed by anything George Jr. did until after his term of office. Then, and only then, did he become a RINO. It's funny how that works with Republicans.

    I remember listening to Fox News explain that any criticism of George Jr. while he was in office was treason. Yeah, that's how far Republicans went.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    If you didn't vote Democratic, this applies to you.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    8. A president with no public service experience.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,678
    No, actually, unless there are no conservatives in the Republican Party that doesn't add up: Trump won the Republican vote, in the primaries as well as in the general: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html

    He's a true and mainstream representative of the Republican Party - as it is, in real life. He's vulgar, but otherwise a standard issue Republican politician - another Reagan or W in his ideology and executive agenda, and like them too in his lack of preparation or principle.

    As far as the Supreme Court, any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton - no conservative of principle could object to Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court, or endorse the manner in which the nutjob and nihilistic Republican leadership handled that nomination (or any of the public's business these past few years).
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,447
    #trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Mr. Fish, 30 November 2014

    You know, it's funny; there is discussion encouraging that leftists, liberals, and Democratic supporters should not be so apparently cruel as to tie Donald Trump's voters and supporters to the policies he espouses and pursues, yet here comes one to defend conservatives with the same condemnation: Either this is what they voted for, or they have their reason for being okay with it.

    So, you know, it probably doesn't help to argue, in defense of America Republicans, that they willfully voted in opposition to their own country.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    9. The amount of time the president spends playing golf. (Trump golfed 6 times in his first month in office).
    10. Preventing Milo from speaking anywhere.
     
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    And?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And? Many Republicans did the "best chance to win" math, instead of the guy that best represented their views.
    Really? Democrats are now the conservatives? What world do you live in?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Every conservative wanted an equal conservative to Scalia. Garland didn't have a record on some key constitutional issues, nor has he expressed the originalism or textualism of Scalia. Aside from the simple fact that the Constitution does not require any specific number of Supreme Court justices, only that there be one, with the number determined by Congress.
    Maybe Democrats are that shortsighted, that they would give up executive power simply because they didn't agree with EVERYTHING the candidate espoused.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Who did Republicans try to stop from speaking anywhere? Or are you just cherry picking CPAC?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,456
    Yeah, CPAC. If their side does it, they can't complain about liberals doing it too.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    Oh, they can and will complain. That has been their habit. Republicans or so called "conservatives" are unabashed hypocrites. Their base doesn't care or even realize their hypocrisy.
     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,447

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    #WhatTheyVotedFor: "Forgotten children, conform a new faith: Avidity and lust, controlled by hate."

    You know, this isn't hemming and hawing on gay marriage when the political outline is clear, circa 2008. Nor is this a question of how a Blue Dog Democrat might feel about a president saying a circuit court decision is a good enough reason to not defend DoMA, circa 2011.

    Nor is this a question of reading too much or not enough about prejudice into a politician's gaffe about women or dark skin. It's not even about being such a prig as to whip it out in order to try to make some sort of point about transgender.

    This time it was clear. This wasn't complicated arguments over the suggestions and significance of something Republicans could try arguing was an overhyped obscurity.

    This time it was obvious.

    And they're okay with it. Either because it's actually #WhatTheyVotedFor or merely something they're willing to inflict on their society because, you know, pizza and email and Goldman Sachs, oh, my!

    Seriously, Republicans, with all willing deliberation, answered the first black president and the prospect of the first female president with a supremacist, boasting sexual assailant. There wasn't any mystery.

    And, so, yeah. There are a bunch of the so-called "deplorables", and the only question is whether Trump's degree of incompetence is #WhatTheyVotedFor, but what about the rest? What about the ones who have this or that reason, and everything else, well, it's not that they support or condone that kind of thing, it's just that it's okay with them as long as they think they will get what they want out of the deal, and when they don't it's not their fault, anyway, because it was more important to stop someone who wasn't a supremacist with the appearance of being in thrall to the Russian government.

    This time, the, "I don't like it, but ...", bloc that supported Donald Trump has precisely no excuse under the sun. They own this as much as the supremacists and the lulzies.

    #WhyIThrewInWithBadPeople just isn't going to be a popular Twitter trend among Republican voters, but it would probably work better than making excuses.

    The problem is that it's a lot like asking voters in my state's Fifth Congressional District to run with, #WhyIVotedForABirther. Was a time when there seemed to be reasons for backing politicians tainted by supremacism and superstition. Was a time when part of the rationale included the question of how much damage the occasional wingnut could do because it's not like, you know, Jesse Helms ever got his return to segregation.

    Was a time when the white working-class voter could back union-busting and supply-side economics, international trade deals, or a war on drugs that left addiction to the penal system and just happened to accidentally work out to look just like the racist scheme everyone thought it was, and apparently their excuse was that they really didn't know.

    And, yes, it is possible to oppose policies, like the ACA, as Republicans did, no matter how ignorant and ridiculous the conservative backlash will look when future generations survey the historical record of the period. So, yeah. Backing the fourth most powerful person in the House, who happens to come from your district and is the most powerful woman in that chamber? There are plenty of reasons to vote for the Birther if you're a Fifth District Republican.

    But backing Rep. McMorris Rodgers is akin to backing any local, puerile, Republican alternative to functioning government. That is to say, it's what passes for politics as usual in order to accommodate Republican needs.

    Voting for Donald Trump, just given the fact of his strident, martial talk compounding his blatant bigotry and boasts of sexual assault, isn't really a question of compromising because one somehow sincerely believes Republicans have a clue what they're on about when it comes to health care (ACA replacement?), or educational standards (Common Core replacement?), or law enforcement ("Ferguson effect"?), or ... what? Watching Republicans scramble to find a way to line up behind President Trump would be funny if it was slapstick, but this isn't fiction.

    This wasn't just a vote against Hillary Clinton, or the ACA, or black people or Muslims or whatever. This was a vote against the very idea of America. This was a vote against the Reaganite shining city on the hill. This was a vote against Liberty and Justice for All. And, you know, sure, so that's not this or that voter, but they're okay with it because it's worth whatever else they want for their own satisfaction, and, you know, whatever. It's not admirable. They aren't trustworthy. They're greedy and selfish, and I couldn't tell you whether genuine antisocial outcomes, or mere ignorance to the point of being insensate, is the more or less comforting explanation for what we're seeing.

    This time it was extraordinary; the resulting circumstance is extraordinary; continued endorsement of that circumstance verges on the realm of extraordinary, but also up against the boundary of civilized function itself. Civilized society, generally speaking, is not a suicide pact; our Constitution, it is likewise explicitly declared, both in its appeal to our posterity and the record by which we have sought to establish justice.

    Still, though, we get it: Something was just that important.

    And in this case, such an appeal is also a manner of moral self-indictment.
     
    GratefulMary likes this.
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    And?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So Republicans voted for a certifiable maniac over the interests of the country. Okay. Well, that tells us where Republicans are, doesn't it?
    And where exactly did you get that notion? You aren't being honest are you comrade? Democrats are not your so called "conservative" and no one has represented them to be so. Apparently you are so partisan, you cannot see facts and are incapable of reason. Garland is a very qualified moderate justice.

    I don't know about every, but certainly many Republicans wanted to replace Scalia with an equally radical interventionist justice. But we have laws here, and those laws were subverted by Republicans. In an unprecedented fashion, Republicans once again put their party above the interests of the nation. They refused to even give Garland a hearing as they are required to do by the US Constitution.

    The founding fathers didn't mandate that every Supreme Court justice be a Scalia clone. Further Scalia's "originalism" or "textualism" is a farce. Scalia used it as an excuse to rationalize his radical judicial activism when it suited him and ignored it when it didn't.

    Yes the US Constitution doesn't mandate a specific number of Supreme Court justices. But that's no excuse for what Republicans did. In case you missed it, Republicans are now trying to fill that 9th seat.

    In what world does that make sense? Republicans backed Trump. They voted for him. They knew what he stood for, and they voted for him. They voted for him in their primaries and they voted for him in the general election. And now you want to say, well I really didn't believe in his policies. But I voted for him because, you know, he's a Republican. You and your fellow Republicans, put party above country as Republicans are wont to do.

    If Democrats nominated someone who threatens our democracy a la Trump, I wouldn't vote for him or her period. Party loyalty should never trump patriotism and a love of democracy. But in your party, the Republican Party, it frequently does.

    Milo, apparently Republicans didn't mind his hate speech. They didn't mind his overt racism and sexism, but they drew the line at pedophilia. http://www.salon.com/2017/02/20/cpa...ersy-over-comments-about-sex-with-minors/erry picking CPAC?
     
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Incredibly stupid and petty.
     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,104
    Yes, I agree. It was most definitely "Incredibly stupid and petty" for so many to vote for shortsighted selfish interests whilst ignoring and shunning the common good. errrr... common decency. Make that common sense even.

    Instead you vote this clown in and then want to pretend "It wasn't me" or "I don't agree with all of his words and actions" or, and I love this one, "The liberals made us do it" - none of which will cut it when the history books are written.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Cherry picking never makes a good argument. It's intellectually dishonest and ignorant to compare a single instance against many, frequent protests to silence speakers. You do know what CPAC is, right? While Milo does advocate many conservative values, and in any other setting many conservatives would love to hear him speak, his abrasive manor alone would preclude him from being the face (keynote speaker) of the conservative movement. Hell, even if they didn't rescind the invitation, the worst that would likely happen is fewer people would attend (conservatives aren't big on protests).

    So you have a long way to go in rationally comparing that to frequent, open protest. But we've come to expect that of you.
    The maniacs are those who think the world is going to end.
    Then what do you suppose iceaura meant by, "As far as the Supreme Court, any real conservatives still left in the US voted for Clinton"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Was Scalia a "moderate justice"? No, so why would conservatives want to upset the current balance on the court? Self-defeating altruism?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Wow. You are woefully ignorant about the Constitution...among other things. Calling an originalist and textualist a "radical interventionist" is so far beyond stupid that it is contrary to reality. What laws were subverted? Cite them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The Constitution not only doesn't require Congress to hear a Supreme Count nominee, it grants Congress the right to determine the number of justices on the court.
    Compared to Democrats who regularly call the Constitution a "living, breathing document".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And? Wait, didn't you just claim the Republicans "subverted the law"? The Constitution does require the president to nominate a new justice ("[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court." - Article II), but does not require Congress to confirm or even consider such nominations.
    I didn't vote for him at all. But many did, for the reasons I've already told you.
    Only the left thinks the world is going to end. Most rational people know that our system of checks and balances is more than capable of reigning in an out of control executive branch, with things like the threat of impeachment, Congressional approval for declarations of war, etc.. It's truly hilarious how many leftists are suddenly touting "patriotism".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Supposedly, party loyalty denied Bernie his win.
    Are you saying they shouldn't draw the line at pedophilia?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What the left calls hate speech is any conservative speaker, because they're bigoted.
    You're just butt hurt. Apparently busy writing the history before it has even occurred.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,678
    Trump had the best chance to get a whole lot of Republican votes of any Republican candidate they could find - and they were right. Trump did get a whole a lot of Republican votes. 63 million of them. More than any other Republican ever got in the history of the United States.

    Hence the observation: he represents the Republican voter, the Republican idea of who other Republicans want to be President, the Republican idea of who best represents the will of the Republican Party. You're looking at it. That's the representation of the actual, real life, Republican Party, in the opinion of the people who call themselves Republicans.
    Don't forget "the liberals did it", "both sides did it", and "it never happened".

    I hope that the political history of the US does reverse itself, and those excuses do not - this time - "cut it".

    Because with Reagan, Bush, and W, when the "history books" were written that is exactly what was written: that it wasn't them, that they didn't agree with those kinds of words and actions, that the liberals made them do it, that the liberals did it, that both sides did it, and that it never happened.
     

Share This Page