Are Republicans Evil?

[Gil Bang 25898]

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

7 hours ago, Fozzz said:

You would be working 80 hours a week or more for wages that would barely keep you alive without unions.  

The idea of unions is a great one. And the threat of unionization is an important tool for employee rights. However, the actual implementation of unions is going about as well as if we allowed Facebook  or AT&T to set our wages. We don't generally like monopolies for utilities or large companies, whether it be tech or whatever industry. But we have national unions that monopolize professions and create toxic environments that stifle innovation. I work in a job that is heavily unionized in other places, and the threat of unionization is an important tool that has led to me getting a 4% raise for 7 out of the last 8 years. And the one year we didn't get 4% we got 2%. So pretty good considering we aren't a union shop. I have coworkers who have come over from union shops who much prefer our atmosphere, because we generally actually do work and don't waste oxygen for a paycheck like happens in some instances at their old places of work. There are folks who get leverage on management and come in and do nothing for their shift, leaving others to pick up the slack. And promotions are based on seniority rather than merit, so there is no reason to try and work hard. I'd much rather have my current work environment than deal with that. I think unions would be great if they were regulated so that we had only smaller local unions that actually had an interest in their workers, but our system currently let's them operate more like the mob.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13547]

The current system that has dwindled union membership to single digits allows the wealthy to operate more like a mob.

[NWBuck 8548]

An aspect of our current crisis can be found in the fact that it's not enough for one party/group/perspective to win, we have to have the other side lose. 

In fact, we're almost more often interested in the other losing than we are our side carrying the day. 

All the while failing to see that the 'them' who's losing is also us. Schadenfreude is a national past time. 

It's like the two kids who are each offered half  a sandwich, but would rather throw them both away than see the other kid get half. "If I can't have the whole thing, neither will you". 

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

20 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

the Republican party, there really isn't anywhere for them to go. There are probably many more who would leave in a heartbeat if there was a realistic alternative that had any semblance of embodying the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government.

Libertarian?

[Steamboat1874 4032]

19 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

"the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men do nothing."

see also:

that's what we see with the current republican party, and i would say that, at the very least, the supposedly good people part of the republican party doing nothing is helping to enable evil.

but we are also seeing a weird reshaping of the political reality: republicans are on the wane, and it's because they are trying to super-serve a dying demographic who traditionally were the largest cohort of voters: old white people and rural america. this is changing, as is the landscape of american demographics and voter patterns. the 2018 midterm was a very telling data point. if the trends that were displayed during that election continue into 2020, the republican party may end up digging its own grave.

and it's because of fear. old white people and rural america are scared of "losing" their country. what they do not realize is that the country isn't what they thought it was. that when reasonable people hear things like "make america great again" they hear a racist dog whistle. they look around their technology job, see successful people of all races, ethnicity, and sexuality, and shrug their shoulders and say "what isn't great about this?" then they hear more racist rhetoric, and they realize that the republican party is not courting them. at all. 

just take a look at he texas gop. major recent initiative include anti-gay/trans legislation, fear politics and bathroom bills, and a fucking "chick fil-a" bill. this is all rural and white old people shit. this is playing on fears of motivated voters to get them to the voting booths. 

but the rural and old white people vote is dying. people are moving to the cities, and are becoming more progressive as a result.

this scares the actual fuck out of old white people and the rural parts of america. shit is changing, and it's changing without their say-so. 

so they are willing to justify more evil shit. kids in cages with mylar blankets and no toothbrushes? they shouldn't have come here trying to change mah 'merica. that's the sum of any argument. justification of evil acts to preserve the "great america" that never existed, except for white people and for blue collar rural workers who manufactured america's economic rise. but that steel job ain't coming back, and neither is that coal job. your union jobs are gone, and you've left the democratic party because they could not bring them back. and now you're left justifying evil acts because the landscape of america is changing. what you don't realize is that change is inevitable, and it is actually good in most cases. 

instead of justifying evil, we should be going to the taco trucks on the corner and eating the good food there.

but the republicans do not want to do that. they are stuck in a hate/fear cycle, and that produces the evil that currently infests the white house and the entire remaining bits of the republican party. if the party apparatus does not start making real changes to the hate/fear/evil cycle, i predict that the republican party will cease to be a thing in a decade, if not sooner. the demographic upon which they are preying will die off.

and there will be fewer "good men" who do nothing. 

Great post man.

Bravo

[Goo Punch 4275]

history will not look kindly upon the republican party of this era. they are a stain on American history, and Trump's election/presidency is one of (if not THE) low points of America in my lifetime. the OP is 100% right when he says that it simply does not matter how racist, bigoted, xenophobic, or misogynistic Trump is, republicans will still support him, or at best try and justify/excuse him. he's a vile, disgusting human being, and the continued support of him by republicans has frankly shocked me, and has no doubt divided this country in a more seriously combative and contentious way than i've ever seen. not a single day goes by where i'm not completely ashamed and embarrassed to be represented by such a human piece of trash, and to know that our democratic process resulted in this human paraquat actually becoming our president. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Trump and the members of his administration and McConnell and Graham and Steve King are evil.

The other Republicans in Congress are collaborators and enablers of evil.

The voters that embrace them are either evil or ignorant or stupid or selfish.

[David Dennison 18660]

2 hours ago, Goo Punch said:

history will not look kindly upon the republican party of this era. they are a stain on American history, and Trump's election/presidency is one of (if not THE) low points of America in my lifetime. the OP is 100% right when he says that it simply does not matter how racist, bigoted, xenophobic, or misogynistic Trump is, republicans will still support him, or at best try and justify/excuse him. he's a vile, disgusting human being, and the continued support of him by republicans has frankly shocked me, and has no doubt divided this country in a more seriously combative and contentious way than i've ever seen. not a single day goes by where i'm not completely ashamed and embarrassed to be represented by such a human piece of trash, and to know that our democratic process resulted in this human paraquat actually becoming our president. 

As much as I am tempted to say the Donald Trump presidency represents the low point of America during my lifetime, I was born during Nixon and Vietnam.

I can say with confidence, however, that Donald Trump will be regarded by historians as the worst president we've ever had.

[NowThis 931]

the evil is pretending to be Christian but being so warlike and cruel to innocent people in other nations & reducing welfare at home while ignoring injustice for the powerless. Yes, Jesus is my Lord! (but fuck everyone else except me!)

[Drew 2331]

People who consider themselves Republican's, or Democrats, do the same damn thing.  They follow the party lead and vote based on that alone.  It's why I HATE our current political structure and wish they'd do away with it and allow us to vote based on each individuals beliefs and their platform...not because they're a Republican or Dem.

Obviously the people who blindly follow Trump and vote for him are idiots...and so are the people who vote strictly Dem because of a few of their political points.

[safe sex 11684]

Pretty weak "both sides" tbh

 

 

[WBT 20422]

20 minutes ago, Drew said:

People who consider themselves Republican's, or Democrats, do the same damn thing.  They follow the party lead and vote based on that alone.  It's why I HATE our current political structure and wish they'd do away with it and allow us to vote based on each individuals beliefs and their platform...not because they're a Republican or Dem.

Obviously the people who blindly follow Trump and vote for him are idiots...and so are the people who vote strictly Dem because of a few of their political points.

What's stopping you?  Or anyone?  It's not the structure.  It's the voters.

[EMAWesome 101]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

People who consider themselves Republican's, or Democrats, do the same damn thing.  They follow the party lead and vote based on that alone.  It's why I HATE our current political structure and wish they'd do away with it and allow us to vote based on each individuals beliefs and their platform...not because they're a Republican or Dem.

Obviously the people who blindly follow Trump and vote for him are idiots...and so are the people who vote strictly Dem because of a few of their political points.

Right now if you think every proposal that comes out of a Democrat's mouth is complete insanity what other choice do you have?  I get called a Trumpkin, Trumpalo, or some other insult every fucking day in this forum simply because in my opinion the entire Democrat Party has gone batshit insane and any alternative to them is a better alternative.  I'm not voting for Republicans because they are Republicans.  I'm voting for them because they are not batshit insane.  I'm not following Trump blindly.  I'm following Trump because he is not batshit insane.  I would love for a legitimate third party to have enough pull to be a legitimate option in elections.  I have been waiting for this to happen for over 30 years.   I'm expecting I will have to wait at least another 130 years though before it ever happens.

[Brisketexan 104628]

2 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm following Trump because he is not batshit insane. 

Someone actually typed that.

Pretty amazing. I'm amazed.

[Drew 2331]

55 minutes ago, WBT said:

What's stopping you?  Or anyone?  It's not the structure.  It's the voters.

Because you can't vote for one political candidate based on there OWN ideals.  It's always burdened with all the rest that come with being a Republican or Democrat. So it's not so simple.

 

You can't vote for someone who is for Gun Control, but is also Pro Choice. Republicans believe one, but not the other. 

You can't vote for someone who wants to limit the amount of Government Welfare, but is also for relaxed Immigration Laws/Reform. 

 

So yes, that's a fine fairy tail, but it's just not realistic.  You basically have to vote down a party line like the rest of the lemmings(on BOTH sides BTW), and get called a snowflake for voting one way, or a racist for voting the other.

[Nivek 16861]

As much as I am tempted to say the Donald Trump presidency represents the low point of America during my lifetime, I was born during Nixon and Vietnam.
I can say with confidence, however, that Donald Trump will be regarded by historians as the worst president we've ever had.

I would happily take Nixon over Trump. He was a far better president and a better man.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

Right now if you think every proposal that comes out of a Democrat's mouth is complete insanity what other choice do you have?  I get called a Trumpkin, Trumpalo, or some other insult every fucking day in this forum simply because in my opinion the entire Democrat Party has gone batshit insane and any alternative to them is a better alternative.  I'm not voting for Republicans because they are Republicans.  I'm voting for them because they are not batshit insane.  I'm not following Trump blindly.  I'm following Trump because he is not batshit insane.  I would love for a legitimate third party to have enough pull to be a legitimate option in elections.  I have been waiting for this to happen for over 30 years.   I'm expecting I will have to wait at least another 130 years though before it ever happens.

Let me let you in on a big secret, the difference between the majority of democrats and republicans in office is an illusion.  It’s a great magic trick.  Most of them serve the same masters with the same ideology.  

There are a few exceptions of course but those outliers are quickly neutralized so they don’t upset the current ecosystem of payoffs and profits.  The authentic rebels in it for the right reasons are always demonized by memes and talk radio...by pundits, paid TV hosts, and trolls that serve the same masters as the mealy-mouthed moderates that want nothing more than to tighten their grip on power.  Yes, the powers that be will quickly ostracize anyone coming in thinking they can make a real change.  It’s up to you to notice their deception and the only way to do that is to pay attention carefully. 

Trump’s divide and conquer approach isn’t new or old in the USA. It’s just more overt. The nihilistic division is by design, it always has been, but it’s never been this bad.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

On 7/22/2019 at 1:31 PM, Jack Straw said:

  Of course, anyone self identifying as, voting for, or supporting Republicans -  at this juncture - is a huge POS,  

I can't stand this.  No "solution" to any problem exists in this rhetoric, on either side.  It's nothing but a bunch of idiots, standing on their respective self-built mountains, screaming obscenities towards each other, forgetting about the people their serving in the valley between.  "If you ain't with me, you're against me" attitude has never gotten us anywhere, and it never will.  Consider me "agnostic" to politics.  I don't know who to identify with.  It sure as hell isn't Trump, but it mother-fucking-sure as hell isn't the "squad."  If everyone would just shut the fuck up and start to attempt to work together, maybe we could get somewhere.  

 

[Jack Straw 2953]

6 minutes ago, ernest_t_bass said:

 If everyone would just shut the fuck up and start to attempt to work together, maybe we could get somewhere.  

this sounds great and all, but the problem with this proposition is that Republicans have made it absolutely, crystal clear that there is no one in their party who is amenable to being "worked with," on anything.  it's a non-starter. 

[Js1 85111]

Why do you have to identify with the squad? Is the squad running for President? Is the entire Democratic Party kowtowing to the squad? (Hint: no. Many disagree with them, publicly, and nothing happens to them unlike republicans who oppose trump)

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Why do you have to identify with the squad? Is the squad running for President? Is the entire Democratic Party kowtowing to the squad? (Hint: no. Many disagree with them, publicly, and nothing happens to them unlike republicans who oppose trump)

I say "The Squad" b/c they are the extreme left, and Trump is the extreme right.  It's a choice of right or left.  And I don't identify with either.  The left is the left, whether it is "The Squad," or the people closest to the center.  The right is the right, whether it is Trump, or the people closest to the center.  

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

9 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

this sounds great and all, but the problem with this proposition is that Republicans have made it absolutely, crystal clear that there is no one in their party who is amenable to being "worked with," on anything.  it's a non-starter. 

It's just finger pointing.  "Yeah, well, it's GOP fault!"  I get where you are coming from, and what you are saying.  But this is all you read... EVER.  People run around pointing fingers, pointing blame, then taking it as a 'W'.  

[Celery Man 20886]

There are points being made that would be fairly reasonable in a reality that is different than this one.

Just now, ernest_t_bass said:

I say "The Squad" b/c they are the extreme left, and Trump is the extreme right.  It's a choice of right or left.  And I don't identify with either.  The left is the left, whether it is "The Squad," or the people closest to the center.  The right is the right, whether it is Trump, or the people closest to the center.  

The problem with that is that the squad is 4 out of 201 in the lower body.  They make a lot of noise, there are people who are with them, they are not leading the party and were in the process of being marginalized *by the democratic leadership* before Trump began hurling horrible unamerican attacks at them.  Trump, on the other hand, is 1 out of 1.  And not just 1 out of 1, but 1 executive in a cabinet full of non senate confirmed temporary appointees entirely beholden to him.  And not just the leader of the Republicans, but the center of the republican universe, to which almost every single Republican has been made entirely supplicant.  He is the Republican party.

Of course, that's not the point.  The point is that what he is doing is evil, and he's doing it because he himself is evil.  And the people in power who are supporting him are evil.  And the people out in the real world on the ground who are supporting him are engaged in evil.  And it's not because "mah team" because AS YOU CAN FUCKING TELL if you've even paid a small amount of attention, the only thing that is required for a decent person to "flip sides" is to be able to recognize evil and prioritize not evil over evil.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Someone actually typed that.

Pretty amazing. I'm amazed.

Yeah, sitting back in fucking wonderment over that sentence. 

[Js1 85111]

32 minutes ago, ernest_t_bass said:

I say "The Squad" b/c they are the extreme left, and Trump is the extreme right.  It's a choice of right or left.  And I don't identify with either.  The left is the left, whether it is "The Squad," or the people closest to the center.  The right is the right, whether it is Trump, or the people closest to the center.  

Then fucking stay home if you think "the left" is equivalent to "the right."  I don't think politics is for you, since you're too unaware to see the differences.

One is throwing kids in cages, trying to take health insurance from vulnerable people, cutting the social safety net while passing tax cuts for the extremely wealthy and letting foreign hostile governments interfere in our elections for the benefits while actively helping then by deciding who can and can't vote.

Laughable that anyone thinks 2020 is "left" vs. "right." 

It's not.  Its evil and bigoted hatred versus everyone else. 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Js1

[Nivek 16861]

I can't stand this.  No "solution" to any problem exists in this rhetoric, on either side.  It's nothing but a bunch of idiots, standing on their respective self-built mountains, screaming obscenities towards each other, forgetting about the people their serving in the valley between.  "If you ain't with me, you're against me" attitude has never gotten us anywhere, and it never will.  Consider me "agnostic" to politics.  I don't know who to identify with.  It sure as hell isn't Trump, but it mother-fucking-sure as hell isn't the "squad."  If everyone would just shut the fuck up and start to attempt to work together, maybe we could get somewhere.  
 

How do you work with a party that looks for loopholes to get around the rules, breaks deals they made with you, refuses to do their job, suppresses your supporters, blames you for their failures and tries to get your members killed?

That you think the “squad” is some extreme leftist group equivalent to the current right-wing trump party demonstrates you dont really know what you are talking about or are just trying to justify your support.

Nazi wannabe’s - very fine people. Kick his ass, i’ll pay for the ticket. I’ll balance the budget and wipe out the debt. I’ll fix health care - it will cover more and be cheaper. I wont golf. I don’t watch tv. Mexico will pay for it. Trade wars are easy. Don’t believe your lying eyes. I should be president for life. Putting kids in cages and denying them toothbrushes.

Both sides my ass.

[EMAWesome 101]

Maybe not the best thread to post this but I can't find any better ones either.  Bold type are my highlights of this piece.

 

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/17/the-dangers-of-illiberal-liberalism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/thedangersofilliberalliberalismopenfuture

 

If ever there was a vivid illustration of illiberal liberalism, it was the response to one of the essays in this very series. After The Economist published an article by Kathleen Stock, reader in philosophy at the University of Sussex, which sensitively questioned whether “self-declaration alone could reasonably be the only criterion of being trans”, the Sussex Students’ Union denounced her as a transphobe. In the union's original statement, it declared “we will not tolerate hate on our campus.” “Trans and non-binary lives are not a debate.”

These key tropes—“we will not tolerate” and “this is not a debate”—are now frequently deployed to curtail discussion of issues deemed to be taboo, invariably to “protect” people deemed vulnerable from speech deemed hateful. This secular version of blasphemy follows a sacred script, written by those who consider themselves liberals. Dare to query it and you’ll be damned.

I still consider myself a liberal in the Enlightenment sense of the word. But I have to admit that being a liberal these days is confusing. I continue to take inspiration from John Locke, John Stuart Mill and those more recent freedom fighters of the 1960s who challenged conformism and repression. In Britain this led to partial decriminalisation of both homosexuality and abortion in 1967, and a more open, tolerant, permissive society. These are the liberal values which I recognise and admire.

In contrast, today’s so-called progressive liberals are often intolerant, calling for official censure against anyone perceived as uttering non-progressive views. They openly despise everyone from Trump-voting “Deplorables” and Brexit-voting ”Gammons” (those “others” who dare to vote the wrong way and won’t espouse their “tolerant” values) to those in their own ranks who refuse to toe the liberal line. Many will have noticed the murky civil war among feminists on the transgender issue, or the venom heaped on anyone daring to demur on 100% endorsement of the #MeToo movement. Prominent women, many of whom would call themselves liberal feminists, have been turned on and accused of treason for daring to dissent.

Margaret Atwood’s thoughtful article, “Am I a Bad Feminist?”, was met with howls of rage from fellow feminists. The iconic novelist was accused of being a victim-blaming rape apologist, all of which apparently stemmed from her “white privilege”. Ironically, Ms Atwood’s essay notes that “anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor”. How right she is. After Catherine Deneuve wrote an open letter raising concerns about the effect #MeToo might have on flirting, Asia Argento, also an actress, denounced her and “other French women” for their “interiorised misogyny [which] has lobotomised them to the point of no return”. For daring to raise questions about female sexual agency, Ms Deneuve and others have essentially been told that they’ve been brainwashed.

This particular viciousness is also aimed at liberals who dare any self-criticism. Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia University, published a stinging rebuke of his own tribe for facilitating Donald Trump’s accession to the White House. His New York Times op-ed, “The End of Identity Liberalism” went viral, and received a savaging from his peers. Katherine Franke, a colleague of his at Columbia, accused him of “contributing to the same ideological project”’ as David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. “Both men are underwriting the whitening of American nationalism”, Ms Franke writes “Lilla’s op-ed does the…nefarious background work of making white supremacy respectable”. Such delegitimising slander is commonplace—it’s the liberals’ version of hate speech, spouted without apology in the fight against (ahem) hate speech.

Mr Lilla wants to save liberalism from illiberal identity politics. He writes, “American liberalism… has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.” He has a point, but I am less concerned with rescuing liberalism as a governing ideology than with saving one of its most valuable tenets: free speech, which is too often an inconvenient obstacle to righteousness.

Free speech is carelessly tossed to one side in order to silence views and people that liberals label as intolerant. In a shocking turnaround, the American Civil Liberties Union has recently abandoned its liberal, even-handed attitude to which free-speech cases it will defend. Its new guidelines, titled “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities”, explicitly endorses the view that free speech can harm “marginalised” groups. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms,” it says, “and is intended to, and often will, impede progress toward equality.”

This reflects one of the ways in which liberals have let their guard down on free speech. They have bought into an expanded, subjective definition of harm that incorporates the alleged psychological distress caused by speech. To compound matters, the contemporary fashion for viewing the politically oppressed as defenceless, vulnerable victims has led to a downgrading of free-expression principles in order to protect those marginalised minorities from offence.

Some liberals also see free speech as a Trojan horse for alt-right bigotry. Commentators such as Owen Jones dismiss those fighting censorious trends as “right-wing, well-heeled, white, straight, male commentators… bigots who clothe themselves in the garb of free speech [but]…just want the right to hate without challenge.” And yet, this is partly due to liberal cowardice. A cursory look at coverage of the so-called “Free Tommy” brigade, centred around the alleged censorship of Tommy Robinson, a notorious anti-Islam campaigner, reveals how liberals shun defending the free-speech rights of the unpalatable. Yes, I find many of Mr Robinson’s views odious, but a pick’n’mix attitude to free speech betrays liberalism, not Mr Robinson, and worse, it adds to the myth that “free speech” is a “right-wing” cause.

In a much-cited essay entitled “The free speech panic: how the right concocted a crisis’” Will Davies muses: “The intriguing question is why free speech has become such a cherished value for conservatives?” Perhaps a better question would be: Why is free speech no longer “a cherished value” on the liberal left? Surely one reason is that liberals fear being denounced by commentators such as Mr Davies, who suggests that “free speech warriors” are self-serving, handmaidens of the alt-right. Another Guardian columnist, Nesrine Malik, has decided that ”freedom of speech is no longer a value. It has become a loophole exploited with impunity by trolls, racists and ethnic cleansing advocates”. Those who cannot so easily be dismissed as bigots, perhaps civil libertarian liberals, are sneeringly dismissed as “Free Speech Grifters—who flog PC culture as a singularly eminent threat to the freedom of expression.”

This liberal cynicism about the motives of those who espouse free speech can in turn warp their sense of tolerance of others. Afua Hirsch, a British writer and ex-barrister, suggests that “the culture war, so often dressed up as a battle over free speech, in reality boils down to a refusal to engage with alternative points of view.” I couldn’t agree more. However, with no sense of irony, Ms Hirsch goes on to decry the “fantasy” of free speech in which those worried about the “threat of immigration” are ascribed the worst possible motives. Ms Hirsch accuses them of using “sanitised language…to dress up vicious attitudes.”

But if an alternative view to Ms Hirsch’s on immigration (and indeed my own) is castigated as prettifying explicit racist abuse, what hope is there of an inclusive liberal political culture? This between-the-lines reading of political opinions that liberals denounce as a hateful intolerance lacks generosity or empathy. It tells us far more about the smug, closed-minded certainty of illiberal liberals than those they look down on. In fact, liberals will only become liberal again once they abandon this type of sneering and smearing and recognise that free speech—even for those we despise—is the core liberal project. Without it, the much feared (often exaggerated) rise of the far-right won’t be the biggest threat to our freedoms. Instead, illiberalism, in the name of liberalism, will be the PC midwife of authoritarianism.

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

8 hours ago, Js1 said:

versus everyone else. 

 

See... that's just it.  "Not Trump" is not "everyone else."  I won't vote 'R' or 'D' in the next presidential election b/c I don't like what either side is or has become, and the for reaches of each party still represent their parties, whether or not their parties condone them.  

"Politics is not for you!!" - I'm sorry, but screw that.  I'm a tax-paying American citizen.  My one vote is just as meaningful and important as the most elite and the most destitute. 

[horn4life 3755]

I don't think, that they think they are evil.  But they are most certainly from the elected perspective immoral, and completely devoid of the comcept of putting country before party and power.  I think that you could argue that most of the folks in Germany during Hitler's slow rise were not "evil," but they were willing to accept what was previously deemed unacceptable, Then that process repeated itself until Germany and all Germans found themselves in a very dark place.  At first Jews and minority groups in Germany were simply shouted at. Then their homes and businesses were vandalized. Then physical violence towards the minority groups became acceptable as well.  At some point I think you would have to say that the Nazi's as a whole were "evil."  But I can also say that I doubt that most ever saw themselves as evil.  They saw themselves as... loyal patriots...

Of course one man's evil is another man's "very fine people..."

Edited July 24, 2019 by horn4life

[elguapo 4583]

This thread seems like an appropriate place to put this.

 

[Brisketexan 104628]

16 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Maybe not the best thread to post this but I can't find any better ones either.  Bold type are my highlights of this piece.

 

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/17/the-dangers-of-illiberal-liberalism?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/thedangersofilliberalliberalismopenfuture

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

These key tropes—“we will not tolerate” and “this is not a debate”—are now frequently deployed to curtail discussion of issues deemed to be taboo

 

17 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

This secular version of blasphemy follows a sacred script

 

17 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

calling for official censure against anyone perceived as uttering [differing] views

 

18 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

“anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor”

What I find fascinating is that you, an unwavering fan of a man who has repeatedly condemned as traitors and told them to leave the country four women who dare not share thoughtless and naked wrapped-in-the-flag "patriotism," posted thoughts like this.  Truly amazing.  

You can't help but make yourself look like a fool, can you?

[EMAWesome 101]

On 7/22/2019 at 10:21 AM, David Dennison said:

I am not the Democratic Party. I am one of the people who is frustrated with moderates. I think they should go hard left and stay there. The American people will follow.

 

You are so far off base here.  The only way the American people will follow hard left will be if they are being marched that way at gunpoint.

[EMAWesome 101]

Windows motherfucking 10-double post.

Edited July 27, 2019 by EMAWesome

[David Dennison 18660]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

You are so far off base here.  The only way the American people will follow hard left will be if they are being marched that way at gunpoint.

Which direction has the country moved over the last 100 years?

[Gil Bang 25898]

On 7/23/2019 at 4:38 PM, Nivek said:

I would happily take Nixon over Trump. He was a far better president and a better man.

I had a poli-sci professor who had worked for Nixon.   

He told a story of Nixon's trip to China.  His staff prepared a 1000 page brief; virtually everything there was to know about China.  Nixon returned it to them with margin notes. 

Trump can't read a comic book. 

[Tom 2959]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I had a poli-sci professor who had worked for Nixon.   

He told a story of Nixon's trip to China.  His staff prepared a 1000 page brief; virtually everything there was to know about China.  Nixon returned it to them with margin notes. 

Trump can't read a comic book. 

 

Why would Trump need to read a comic book?  Trump is a very stable genius who knows more about comic books than anyone.  Many people are saying that Stan Lee learned everything he knew about comics from Donald Trump.

[hobbes2702 12846]

On 7/24/2019 at 4:26 PM, ernest_t_bass said:

See... that's just it.  "Not Trump" is not "everyone else."  I won't vote 'R' or 'D' in the next presidential election b/c I don't like what either side is or has become, and the for reaches of each party still represent their parties, whether or not their parties condone them.  

"Politics is not for you!!" - I'm sorry, but screw that.  I'm a tax-paying American citizen.  My one vote is just as meaningful and important as the most elite and the most destitute. 

Then act like it and educate yourself to the differences between the left and the right in the country.

[ernest_t_bass 1196]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

 

Why would Trump need to read a comic book?  Trump is a very stable genius who knows more about comic books than anyone.  Many people are saying that Stan Lee learned everything he knew about comics from Donald Trump.

Stan Lee. Great guy, solid guy.  Just superb.

[RayDog 682]

6 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I had a poli-sci professor who had worked for Nixon.   

He told a story of Nixon's trip to China.  His staff prepared a 1000 page brief; virtually everything there was to know about China.  Nixon returned it to them with margin notes. 

Trump can't read a comic book. 

If it was not for Watergate and the cover-up Nixon would have been the best Republican presidential of my lifetime. I sometimes still wonder if he was anyway.

[Zombie 284]

Sorry, but not sorry, these guys and gals are fucking evil and I despise them. 

[gmr548 16517]

The ones in charge? Yes, or at the very least so morally corrupt that the difference is marginal.

The rank and file, including the upper middle class "principled, intellectual conservative" crowd? No, they are just fucking obtuse.

[hobbes2702 12846]

26 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

The ones in charge? Yes, or at the very least so morally corrupt that the difference is marginal.

The rank and file, including the upper middle class "principled, intellectual conservative" crowd? No, they are just fucking obtuse.

Is it deliberate?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Yes we are.  We want to eat your children.   

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes we are.  We want to eat your take brown children from their parents and put them in cages to punish them because their parents tried to bring them to the US to give them a better life.   

FIFY.

[achooloco 1065]

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes we are.  We want to eat your children.   

No, @Johnny Sack just supports people who like to sexually assault little kids. But hey, you do you, pedophile loving piece of shit. Evil from another thread: 

 Link

“In 2017, a normally routine document released by the archives, a records retention schedule, revealed that archivists had agreed that officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement could delete or destroy documents detailing the sexual abuse and death of undocumented immigrants. Tens of thousands of people posted critical comments, and dozens of senators and representatives objected. The National Archives made some changes to the plan, but last month it announced that ICE could go ahead and start destroying records from Mr. Trump’s first year, including detainees’ complaints about civil rights violations and shoddy medical care.”

 

[achooloco 1065]

So @Fondren & Main likes to sexually abuse little kids, or supports those who cover it up. Good to know!

[Fondren & Main 6670]

1 hour ago, achooloco said:

So @Fondren & Main likes to sexually abuse little kids, or supports those who cover it up. Good to know!

I’d love to meet you at the next DFW happy hour to discuss this.

[achooloco 1065]

Or you could Just say how destroying the records proves that republicans are NOT evil. But hey, keep supporting pedophiles, you do you. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

I dunno, you decide: