The Republican Utopia

[zoogs]

I hope everybody includes more and more people in our ever-expanding category of "people".

 

It's about how we treat our fellow human beings.

[wutthewut]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The use of fossil fuels and the byproducts of carbon enrichment play a large role in advancing the quality of human life by increasing food production to feed our growing population, stimulating the economy, and alleviating poverty, he wrote.

A lot of UNL agriscience professors work solely on research that allows food to be grown in worsening conditions which are caused by global warming.

 

And then you have this know-nothing dumbass say this bullsh#t.

 

I think the anti-science stuff is what sickens me the most about the Trump presidency.

Anti-Science? I didn't realize Trump sees gender as fluid, or that a beating heart inside a womb isn't a human...

Trump has literally said that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

I'm aware... Definitely not going to defend everything he says because, well.... That's not possible.. or intelligent. It's just funny that the same people screaming "science denier!" are the ones who say genitalia doesn't matter in reference to gender.

No one said that in this topic, so why did you make that post? And it was in response to my post, where I said nothing of the kind.

 

Did you even read my response? Democrats want transgender people to be treated like people. It's not in their platform that "genitalia doesn't matter in reference to gender"

No, Democrats want transgender people to be given special treatment and include them in their ever expanding subcategories of victims so they can capture more votes. It's all about politics and control. On both sides.

Do you feel the same way about homosexuals? It's not a matter of science. Everyone should be free to live their lives as they please, free from discrimination, so long as they aren't infringing on others.

Please read above statement more closely.

[Moiraine]

This "I hate both sides" schtick doesn't work if you never say anything specific about one side in particular and post articles from ultra-conservative websites which link to other ultra-conservative websites.

 

I have big issues with both sides too, much morseo with the GOP, but I don't link super Democratic leaning website articles and I often point out things I don't like about the Democratic party too.

[wutthewut]

This "I hate both sides" schtick doesn't work if you never say anything specific about one side in particular and post articles from ultra-conservative websites which link to other ultra-conservative websites.

 

I have big issues with both sides too, much morseo with the GOP, but I don't link super Democratic leaning website articles and I often point out things I don't like about the Democratic party too.

If I look at my viewpoints on every issue, I'd be considered primarily libertarian. The solution to most problems is less government and more individual responsibility. So I suppose most might fit me into the republican party because they more consistently align with what's correct, but I don't claim the GOP for a lot of reasons. You want specific issues, here you go:

 

Republicans - generally say the right things on the campaign trail about limiting the size and scope of the government but when in office they rarely if ever back it up. They fail to slash wasteful spending and send power back to state and local governments like it was originally intended to be. Typically it's because money talks and politicians are almost always influenced by big money.

 

Democratic party - they approach things with good intentions I believe for the most part but are almost always off in lala land. They don't base their policy on sound logic, so most of the time they react however feels good at the time, which results in a lot of viewpoints that conflict with each other and don't make sense. Just ask and I'll share a few hundred memes that exemplify just that.

 

The biggest issue with the Democratic party is they try to make everybody victims. Unless you're white, male, rich, straight, or Christian, count on the Dems to classify you as a victim to a society that is rooted in institutional bias against you and that you need politicians to step in and save the day. It's a tiring charade that should be easy enough to see right through, and there's been an awakening across the country to this lately. Hence, there hasn't been a significant Democratic victory in an election in quite some time.

[mrandyk]

It sounds like your biggest issue with the Democrats is that they support the idea of equality.

[wutthewut]

It sounds like your biggest issue with the Democrats is that they support the idea of equality.

In the 60s you could say that about the Democrats. Not today.

[Kiyoat Husker]

So we are now providing evidence for our arguments with memes rather than data and peer-reviewed research (that hasn't been paid-for by the Koch Brothers)?

 

Sounds legit.

[Kiyoat Husker]

If I look at my viewpoints on every issue, I'd be considered primarily libertarian. The solution to most problems is less government and more individual responsibility.

[...]

Republicans - [...] money talks and politicians are almost always influenced by big money.

[...]

Democratic party - [...] They don't base their policy on sound logic, so most of the time they react however feels good at the time [...]

On Libertarianism: I disagree with most of the Libertarian platform, but certainly those beliefs merit debate. Specifically on the size of federal vs state governments, an intelligent argument could be made and defended.

 

On Republicans caving to big money: I agree with you wholeheartedly that special interest lobbying from big money has corrupted Washington, but I won't only point at Republicans. It's everywhere.

 

On Democrats: this is where you lost me. Basing a belief on propaganda, rhetoric, conspiracies and pseudoscience has lately been the realm more of conservatives.

[BigRedBuster]

[NM11046]

I just heard a snippet of his interview on On Point this morning. Didn't know for sure who it was even - I'll have to go back and read it. What I heard him say I actually respected quite a bit.

[zoogs]

"He has praised many of Trump's appointments but is dismayed by his policies."

Certainly not the efforts to dismantle Obamacare. Like McCain, Flake could have stopped this debate from even happening or been a part of the vote to stop it. He did neither. And like McCain, he nonetheless still wants to find a way to get rid of the ACA.

It's *not* a brave thing for a Republican to "admit" that free trade isn't the cause of every woe. But sure, this is an easy opportunity to build your brand. It's not unlike Sens. Sasse, Graham, McCain himself, etc. But if Trump is only the culmination of the problem, then a return to Republican orthodoxy is an interesting non-challenge. The claim that his own team wouldn't have supported this bold and daring piece of conservatism brand promotion is funny, and sure does make him look like a hero.

Granted, it's also long past time dissociation from this President went mainstream within the GOP. or xenophobia and brutality actually will prevail. Good luck on your 2020 presidential run, Mr. Flake!

 

[NM11046]

I know Flake is a "flake" and hasn't exactly taken a bold stance as of yet, but I appreciated his candor in this Politico article:

 

[zoogs]

^I do think statements such as those are important. I think the Vox piece does a great job also in deconstructing it: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/31/16072766/jeff-flake-trump-denial-noah-ark-flood

As they note, his recommendations amount to rebranding conservatism. Re-establishing the GOP orthodoxy on free trade, protecting the intrinsically conservative filibuster. These are not awful things and I mainly agree with at least one of them. They're good to say and offer a pathway for the conservative old guard.

What this don't fit is a narrative of "Trump is the culmination of deep-seated of GOP faults which our party needs to address." It is let's get back to business as usual and can we have our luster back, please? So there, I disagree. Because I do agree with that narrative. You don't get to just press the reset button if Trump is merely the product of your dreams ... unless what you want is more Trumps. I'm suspicious that maybe he does, as long as they're more palatable. Relatedly; emphasis mine:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A conservative House Republican is calling on special counsel Robert Mueller to resign, citing what he says is a conflict of interest because of Mueller's "close friendship" with fired FBI Director James Comey.

The argument from Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, a member of the Judiciary Committee, echoes that of President Donald Trump in an effort to question Mueller's credentials for the job. Mueller, appointed after Trump abruptly fired Comey, is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump's campaign.

Franks said in a statement that Mueller "must resign to maintain the integrity of the investigation into alleged Russian ties."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-lawmaker-calls-muellers-resignation-040119899--politics.html

This is your GOP, everyone.

[zoogs]

The Republican Utopia.

 

 

We're going to pay for it.

[Moiraine]

How can anyone vote for someone so fake?