The 2016 Republican National Convention

[teachercd]

I'd like to go to sleep now, but after watching the speech I'm afraid an illegal immigrant is going to break into my house and shoot me.

Ha!

 

Wait....where do you live? Haha

[teachercd]

He's obviously never flown in and out of a third world country.

https://twitter.com/swmckewonowh/status/756315880796131328

Or Epply

[QMany]

[BigRedBuster]

Wow....CNN is getting heated right now.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting question.

 

[QMany]

TSA is getting fixed "quickly!" Let's gooo!!!

[teachercd]

Interesting question.

 

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/756338617019084800

Well...not as many jokes!

[Whistlebritches]

Wow....CNN is getting heated right now.

Wasn't anywhere near a TV tonight. What happened?

[BigRedBuster]

Oh, just some of the commentators that usually discuss things pretty civilly got pretty heated. It was different than the normal political people bickering back and forth.

[JJ Husker]

Trump delegate watch: http://abc7chicago.com/politics/il-trump-delegate-booted-from-rnc-after-racist-facebook-post/1436422/

 

These are the people rallying together at this year's RNC. What has happened to you, Party of Lincoln? What a farcical phrase that's become.

Zoogs you're better than this. Did you just take the dispicable action of one person and attribute that action to all republicans, the Party of Lincoln?

 

The RNC pulled this delegates credentials and kicked her out of the convention. But you want to give the impression that the party condones this behavior? I'm seeing something farcical but it's not coming from where you claim it is. Do you also blame the whole of the BLM for the actions of a few?

[zoogs]

It'd be unfair if it didn't capture the Trump camp writ large. Trump stokes these very flames, so no, he doesn't get to dissociate or feign shock when it catches fire -- as it has before, and will again. You don't need to look far.

 

To equate Trump's brand and rhetoric with BLM, or to suggest that racism is equally fringe within his movement as supporting cop-killing is within BLM, would be incredibly dishonest. And JJ, you're better than that, too.

 

What is officially called the GOP could have refused to stand for all of this, but chose to enable it instead. I can see why -- preservation -- but it is no less excusable. Bravo to them for stripping her of her credentials -- and all the other necessary condemnations of things Trump or Trump surrogates have said or done -- but that's as far as the congratulations will get. The sane Republicans have left the building, at least temporarily. The Trumpists and his enablers remain.

 

The Party of Lincoln electorate is far gone from the GOP, anyway. Time has changed both parties a great deal, and the appeal to an ancient hero in a time of drastically different GOP voters and values was already at best, wistful yearning, and at worst, wrongly appropriated self-congratulation.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Not a trump fan but he did a great job and so did his daughter.

 

Have to agree. He gave the speech he needed, one I didn't know he could give.

 

Ivanka was aimed directly at women and she pulled it off sincerely and credibly. His business partner knocked it out of the park.

 

Fear-mongering, misinformation, chin-jutting fascism and lack of specifics were still in abundance, but the marginally more human Donald Trump definitely has a shot to win this.

[JJ Husker]

It'd be unfair if it didn't capture the Trump camp writ large. Trump stokes these very flames, so no, he doesn't get to dissociate or feign shock when it catches fire -- as it has before, and will again. You don't need to look far.

 

To equate Trump's brand and rhetoric with BLM, or to suggest that racism is equally fringe within his movement as supporting cop-killing is within BLM, would be incredibly dishonest. And JJ, you're better than that, too.

 

What is officially called the GOP could have refused to stand for all of this, but chose to enable it instead. I can see why -- preservation -- but it is no less excusable. Bravo to them for stripping her of her credentials -- and all the other necessary condemnations of things Trump or Trump surrogates have said or done -- but that's as far as the congratulations will get. The sane Republicans have left the building, at least temporarily. The Trumpists and his enablers remain.

 

The Party of Lincoln electorate is far gone from the GOP, anyway. Time has changed both parties a great deal, and the appeal to an ancient hero in a time of drastically different GOP voters and values was already at best, wistful yearning, and at worst, wrongly appropriated self-congratulation.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm just not attributing the actions of members within a group to the group at large like you are. Some people would consider that way of thinking stereotyping or prejudice or, in the right situation, even racism. There are good and bad apples in any group you can name. And some groups may have more bad apples than others but it does a great disservice to rational advancement of a discussion to suggest that individuals or subsets within a group can be representative of the whole group. It matters little if you really feel there are more bad apples under the umbrella of today's republican party than you feel are in the BLM. To double down and state as much to defend the stereotyping you are promoting is not a good look.

 

Members of the Republican party fall into all kinds of other groups to. Did you attribute this woman's bad actions to all women? To her profession, whatever it may be? To her skin color? To her sexual orientation? No, you rightly didn't. Why then attribute it to her political party? It wouldn't help the discourse if people began attributing the misdeeds of Democrats to the party at large would it?

 

I understand the sentiment that there is something amiss in the party and that it is not the same Party of Lincoln any longer. But all things change. The democratic party is no longer the same either. It is one of the factors as to why I no longer identify as a republican and will likely never identify as a Democrat. I understand that you do not like what Trump or the current R party represents. But I draw the line at suggesting any other person in the party can be identified by what this one individual and unique person did. You know better than to do that.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

There is plenty of data that gives credence to my statement about Obama being more socialist than anything even remotely close to republican.. I mentioned his upbringing and those around me being communist.

 

Those are facts... His mentor Frank Marshall Davis is a communist.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/obamas-influential-communist-mentor/

 

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past.

 

I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President.

 

• In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done.

 

• When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist.

 

• Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama.

 

• Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it.

 

• His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore.

 

If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved.

 

But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in.

 

If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd.

 

 

I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual.

 

I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this.

 

Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion?

 

 

it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become..

 

 

EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned!

[zoogs]

I'm sorry, JJ, I can't agree. The GOP has (among other things) a racism problem, and Trump has brought it out to the fore. There / are / many, many /other /examples ... without even touching a single one of Trump's words, but his rhetoric is also not hard to parse.

To call that acknowledgment the actual stereotyping, the actual prejudice is the sort of bizarro countershot right out of Trump's playbook, and I have no idea why someone as thoroughly reasonable as you are going full throttle with it.

"There are good and bad apples in any group"? "All things change"? Goodness, of course; we may as well not have any discussions because anything can be anything. Yeah, not everyone who supports Trump is the same as that woman. Or this Trump advisor. Or this convention speaker. Or this prominent GOP Congressman. Or ...

So, sure. Let's normalize. Let's permit. Let's "not stereotype." Let's pretend these are random, isolated pieces from which we can draw zero inferences -- and not shared reflections of the ugly animus that has catapulted Trump to the top of the 2016 GOP ticket. Because it really is pretending, at this point.

(I've never said that *every* GOP or Trump supporter is a racist, by the way -- or if I did, I misspoke. If that's what touched a nerve, then perhaps we can have a detente here. The entire point of my post was to call on GOP folks to join the many others who have already repudiated this horror show.)