The 2016 Republican National Convention

Red Five · July 22, 2016

Surprising

zoogs · July 22, 2016

I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of the approach.

To be clear, I am no longer a GOP supporter (although I still appreciate most of what the party used to strive for) and I never have been a fan of Trump. However, there are still good, well intentioned people within the Republican party.

This is not the case. I admire John Kasich for what he has done, which at this point seems to include turning down a shot at the de facto presidency. I admire this RedState writer for saying "I'm done" -- and all the other conservatives on this board who have done so, including you.

The longer this goes on, the more people will have to make that choice -- to do the Ryan cartwheels necessary to accept and excuse these hooligans ("That was racist and I hate that, but ... he'll still advance a conservative agenda, which is what's *really* important" -- I have a real problem with that), or abandon them the way you and others have done. I pin this on a political party rather than on conservatives for a reason. The same way I would pin a terrorist incident on ISIS rather than on Muslims.

Appreciate the compliments by the way, and back at you, also

I guess if we get just a couple more examples of BLM members run amok or Muslims committing terrorist acts (as if we don't have enough already), then it will be "pretending" that those groups don't represent something far more sinister.

There are already several ongoing debates about whether "Black Lives Matter" or the entire Muslim religion should be treated as sinister. For me, it'd have to take an upending of reality and not "a couple more examples".

TGHusker · July 22, 2016

I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of the approach.

To be clear, I am no longer a GOP supporter (although I still appreciate most of what the party used to strive for) and I never have been a fan of Trump. However, there are still good, well intentioned people within the Republican party.

This is not the case. I admire John Kasich for what he has done, which at this point seems to include turning down a shot at the de facto presidency. I admire this RedState writer for saying "I'm done" -- and all the other conservatives on this board who have done so, including you.

The longer this goes on, the more people will have to make that choice -- to do the Ryan cartwheels necessary to accept and excuse these hooligans ("That was racist and I hate that, but ... he'll still advance a conservative agenda, which is what's *really* important" -- I have a real problem with that), or abandon them the way you and others have done. I pin this on a political party rather than on conservatives for a reason. The same way I would pin a terrorist incident on ISIS rather than on Muslims.

Appreciate the compliments by the way, and back at you, also

I guess if we get just a couple more examples of BLM members run amok or Muslims committing terrorist acts (as if we don't have enough already), then it will be "pretending" that those groups don't represent something far more sinister.

There are already several ongoing debates about whether "Black Lives Matter" or the entire Muslim religion should be treated as sinister. For me, it'd have to take an upending of reality and not "a couple more examples".

good article by the Red State writer.

TGHusker · July 22, 2016

Trump back to being Trump this morning

I see Mike Pence in the background in the picture and wonder if he really understands what he signed up for. My only hope is that he 'moderate' trump somewhat. But that is doubtful.

Guy Chamberlin · July 22, 2016

Surprising

Surprised, too. I knew interest and viewership in the conventions had been waning, but this really felt like must-see reality TV.

Or is it that we can now choose to not watch these kind of events, knowing the good stuff will be all over the Internet the next day?

I certainly know a lot of people who were interested in the RNC, but couldn't bear to watch.

HuskerNation1 · July 22, 2016

It looks like Trump received some very positive numbers from CNN's poll last night after the speech....75% responded positively to the speech, and 56% indicated they were more likely to support Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/

BigRedBuster · July 22, 2016

It looks like Trump received some very positive numbers from CNN's poll last night after the speech....75% responded positively to the speech, and 56% indicated they were more likely to support Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/

Every time thy discussed this, they made it clear that this is not indicative of the general public. Someone listening to the speech is going to have a much higher than normal chance of being someone who is seriously already thinking of voting for him.

The same thing will happen next week with Hillary.

TGHusker · July 22, 2016

I've heard that he might announce cabinet positions fairly quickly.

So here are a few names I'll throw out there:

General Mike Flynn, Sec of Def

Rudy G CIA

Newt : Homeland Security

Chris Christi- Attorney General

Ben Carson - Sec of Health and Human Services

Donald Trump Jr - White House Chief of Staff

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee - Sec of State

Larry Kudlow - Sec of Treasury

Harold Hamm Sec of Energy

Mary Fallen - Sec of HUD

Sarah Palin - Press Secretary (wouldn't that drive the press nuts)

John Bolton - UN Ambassador

Ivanka Trump - Sec of Labor

huskerfan2000 · July 22, 2016

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!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right?

Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one.

That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him.

Thank you for making that point!

You're silly.

Fact.

Too bad you feel the need to lash out after being shown the error in your logic.

zoogs · July 22, 2016

You're welcome to start a "Obama/Democratic Party is communist" thread, huskerfan2000 -- and take that argument as far as you are able to support it.

Guy Chamberlin · July 22, 2016

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!

Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord...

So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion.

I guess you don't understand..

No it's not all opinion, you just said as much.

The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme.

The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have.

if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with.

Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal.

I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place.

But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.

Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did.

I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again..

Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something.

In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist.

So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right?

Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one.

That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him.

Thank you for making that point!

You're silly.

Fact.

Too bad you feel the need to lash out after being shown the error in your logic.

Yeah, I honestly missed that part.

Hate to make you fire up your brain again, but if you could glance back at post #209 and find a single thing you successfully refuted, I will rescind my insult.*

HuskerNation1 · July 23, 2016

It looks like Trump received some very positive numbers from CNN's poll last night after the speech....75% responded positively to the speech, and 56% indicated they were more likely to support Trump.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/

Every time thy discussed this, they made it clear that this is not indicative of the general public. Someone listening to the speech is going to have a much higher than normal chance of being someone who is seriously already thinking of voting for him.

The same thing will happen next week with Hillary.

True..but the funny part is CNN seemed to be trashing their own poll. The second number is more important in that is signals support was solidified by a decent number.

BigRedBuster · July 23, 2016

Yep....he helped solidify his base.

He will need a lot more than that.

And....they weren't trashing it. They were being honest about what it was. How is that trashing it?

huskerfan2000 · July 23, 2016

You're welcome to start a "Obama/Democratic Party is communist" thread, huskerfan2000 -- and take that argument as far as you are able to support it.

Your selective post reading noted, or is it just selective moderation. Either way, I didn't start to conversation, but not surprising you selected me to make the comment too. I responded to Guy's post a few pages back.

Moiraine · July 23, 2016

You're welcome to start a "Obama/Democratic Party is communist" thread, huskerfan2000 -- and take that argument as far as you are able to support it.

Your selective post reading noted, or is it just selective moderation. Either way, I didn't start to conversation, but not surprising you selected me to make the comment too. I responded to Guy's post a few pages back.

You're the most defensive poster I've ever seen on this board and that's saying a lot. There are a lot of posters I disagree with (this is the politics forum after all) but at least they make an actual attempt at having a conversation about things they don't see eye to eye with people on. The same can't be said about you.

Your philosophy is "facts are in the eye of the beholder."

It's not possible to have a dialogue with someone like that. There's a reason you were suspended but you don't seem to be grasping what that was.

Sign In

The 2016 Republican National Convention

Recommended Posts

Red Five

Link to comment

zoogs

Link to comment

TGHusker

Link to comment

TGHusker

Link to comment

Guy Chamberlin

Link to comment

HuskerNation1

Link to comment

BigRedBuster

Link to comment

TGHusker

Link to comment

huskerfan2000

Link to comment

zoogs

Link to comment

Guy Chamberlin

Link to comment

HuskerNation1

Link to comment

BigRedBuster

Link to comment

huskerfan2000

Link to comment

Moiraine

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members

Guy Chamberlin

QMany

knapplc

Browse

Activity