Jump to content

The Republican Utopia


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, teachercd said:

I don't think Rush went crazy I think Rush went for the easier/bigger ratings so he started to play up the part even more, smart move on his part because it paid off for him.

I think there's a lot of truth to this.

 

The analytics, the ratings and the money proved that one type of thing made money more than the other. If you want to talk about real conservative politics, in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, that audience pales in comparison to the one that will show out for a crazed kook like Rush.

 

It's the same reason guys like Skip Bayless keep a job. Does he present his takes in a thoughtful, intelligent and mild-mannered way? Hardly. He exaggerates and irritates people, ingratiating his fans and pissing off his haters.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post

  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

lol....this is very true  

What a damnable hypocrite. Christians shouldn't want to be associated with that kind of hatred if they truly cared about Jesus' teachings.    

If you're willing to lose your farm because of that wall, you should lose your farm because of that wall.

Posted Images

20 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:


what made him conservative other that people who think they are conservative loved him?

 

i know it sounds like a stupid question, but it’s what I started asking myself when I started questioning why I was constantly listening to Rush during the day and watching Fox News at night.  
 

What was I listening to and watching that was really conservative?  All they did was ridiculed Democrat politicians and praised like Gods republicans.  
 

I realized, to me, that doesn’t make them conservative. It just made them part of the Republican propaganda machine. 

Definitions, particularly of ideologies and ideological groups, changes over time and have different meanings to different people.

 

As an extreme example, think of what socialism means today in the US - I'd guess the vast majority of people would think of the Soviet Union, but figures like Marx wouldn't have called that socialism - probably the opposite in fact.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
17 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Definitions, particularly of ideologies and ideological groups, changes over time and have different meanings to different people.

 

As an extreme example, think of what socialism means today in the US - I'd guess the vast majority of people would think of the Soviet Union, but figures like Marx wouldn't have called that socialism - probably the opposite in fact.

But, I think that is different than what we see with someone like Rush.  You are talking about how ideologies change. 
 

What I’m saying is that he’s not conservative because of some deep ideology idea. He’s conservative because he hates liberals and said things that makes them mad. 
 

question.  What great conservative ideas did he champion? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But, I think that is different than what we see with someone like Rush.  You are talking about how ideologies change. 
 

What I’m saying is that he’s not conservative because of some deep ideology idea. He’s conservative because he hates liberals and said things that makes them mad. 
 

question.  What great conservative ideas did he champion? 

What I mean is that "conservatism" is no longer about conservative values of decades past, but instead it means hating liberals and opposing anything liberals support. Rush has contributed to the definition changing.

Link to post

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

What I mean is that "conservatism" is no longer about conservative values of decades past, but instead it means hating liberals and opposing anything liberals support. Rush has contributed to the definition changing.

We are saying the same thing in differing ways.  
 

The only reason Rush is considered conservative is because he said hateful things about liberals. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post

This picture, The Republican Club, always bothered me for whom it had sitting at the table.   I have some questions:

 

Why would the painter give such a prominent seat to Trump & Nixon? The 2 most ethically challenged of the club. While history is looking more favorably upon Nixon's overall accomplishments in spite of Watergate, I doubt is will be so friendly towards Trump long term. 

Why is Lincoln's back to the viewer? - he should be at the center of the conversation - eyes on him.  Many historians rank him as the greatest president ever, with Washington second. 

Why is Grant so far back off to left by the pole?   History is looking more kindly upon his presidency and reevaluating it in the context of its time. 

 

I would remove GWB, Trump, and Nixon and replace with  Grant, McKinley, GHWB.  Move Trump towards the rear of the painting & Nixon near Coolidge- who is looking over TR's shoulder.  Move Taft up to take GHWB spot standing near the table.  GWB would move further back. 

 

Of course the painting has one obvious eye catching feature - it shows a female walking up towards the table.  Was that to be Sarah Palin? Or was it just a signal that one day a female GOP president would be elected who would crash this male club. 

 

Here is a 2017 C-Span ranking of presidents by presidential historians. 

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall

 

Here is an interesting article comparing Trump to what the author claims are the top 3 GOP presidents - Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower (hard to argue wt that list.  The historians, in the link above, rank Reagan # 4 of the group - 9th overall)

https://greenstarsproject.org/2020/10/04/best-republican-presidents-trump-republican-party-values/

 

19381therepublicanclubcat1__75156.160556

Link to post
2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

This picture, The Republican Club, always bothered me for whom it had sitting at the table.   I have some questions:

 

Why would the painter give such a prominent seat to Trump & Nixon? The 2 most ethically challenged of the club. While history is looking more favorably upon Nixon's overall accomplishments in spite of Watergate, I doubt is will be so friendly towards Trump long term. 

Why is Lincoln's back to the viewer? - he should be at the center of the conversation - eyes on him.  Many historians rank him as the greatest president ever, with Washington second. 

Why is Grant so far back off to left by the pole?   History is looking more kindly upon his presidency and reevaluating it in the context of its time. 

 

I would remove GWB, Trump, and Nixon and replace with  Grant, McKinley, GHWB.  Move Trump towards the rear of the painting & Nixon near Coolidge- who is looking over TR's shoulder.  Move Taft up to take GHWB spot standing near the table.  GWB would move further back. 

 

Of course the painting has one obvious eye catching feature - it shows a female walking up towards the table.  Was that to be Sarah Palin? Or was it just a signal that one day a female GOP president would be elected who would crash this male club. 

 

Here is a 2017 C-Span ranking of presidents by presidential historians. 

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall

 

Here is an interesting article comparing Trump to what the author claims are the top 3 GOP presidents - Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower (hard to argue wt that list.  The historians, in the link above, rank Reagan # 4 of the group - 9th overall)

https://greenstarsproject.org/2020/10/04/best-republican-presidents-trump-republican-party-values/

 

19381therepublicanclubcat1__75156.160556

Pretty sure none of those guys would be sitting around having a good chuckle with Trump...maybe about Trump.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Pretty sure none of those guys would be sitting around having a good chuckle with Trump...maybe about Trump.

Yep - and that would include Nixon. 

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...