Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Your defense of Kasich amounts to "Kasich was so stupid he didn't understand the plain words he was agreeing to, at a moment when Trump was the *frontrunner* for the nomination."

It's about as clear-cut a case of hypocrisy as you can get.

It could be that, or it could be that he evolved and reconsidered his support based on the kind of presidency he imagined under Trump. 

People change their minds. Stubborness to one's word in the face of revealed idiocy is no virtue. He basically had to decide between being virtuous or a hypocrite. I overlook the latter for the former. I'd think less of someone adhereing to their word if it ends up being a terrible decision to have made the agreement in the first place. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, this is more hostile than anything they said, but you don't see me crying to the admin. Grow up.

I appreciate the apology. I apologize for instances wherein I've cross the line.  Like others, I think politics is a combat sport, even if we don't want it to be. Politics is more personal than e

I don't want to make this long, but I do want to send out an apology to @Reagan04 and @Patine and @vcczar for some nasty unbecoming things I've said lately. I have removed almost everyone from my igno

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It could be that, or it could be that he evolved and reconsidered his support based on the kind of presidency he imagined under Trump. 

People change their minds. Stubborness to one's word in the face of revealed idiocy is no virtue. He basically had to decide between being virtuous or a hypocrite. I overlook the latter for the former. I'd think less of someone adhereing to their word if it ends up being a terrible decision to have made the agreement in the first place. 

 

Kasich knew what Trump was about when he signed the pledge. Kasich might have other strengths (and certainly does), but on this he was a hypocrite.

He should have simply refused to sign the pledge, saying he couldn't support Trump as President! Simple stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

 

Of course, party loyalty was never a thing for Trump, anyways. He had been a card-holding member of Ross Perot's Reform Party from 1999 until only a few years before he declared his candidacy in 2015, and before he was a member of the Reform Party, he was a Democrat and a big supporter of Bill Clinton's two Presidential runs. His running in 2016 as a Republican was pure pragmatism, because he knew the Reform Party was so atrophied it was no longer relevant, and had no funding or infrastructure left, and the Democrats didn't suit the tenor of campaign he planned by the 2010's.

I actually agree with that assumption. However, it would have been highly interesting if Trump had entered the Democratic primary with the exact same campaign. 

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz tried to pull off a similar publicity stunt this election cycle. Unfortunately, he wasn't invited to any debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Kasich knew what Trump was about when he signed the pledge. Kasich might have other strengths (and certainly does), but on this he was a hypocrite.

He should have simply refused to sign the pledge, saying he couldn't support Trump as President! Simple stuff.

That would have been what he should have done at the time, but he ultimately made the right decision for himself, and I think for his party and for history after the fact. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Perhaps, but still a hypocrite on this!

Well, that wouldn't be remotely unique in politics, would it? In fact, the stellar, shining icons of integrity among politicians are those NOT found to be hypocritical...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 7:05 PM, servo75 said:

Curious, what are your thoughts on the Bushes?

I prefer the first Bush. Conservatives often make too many apologies for the incredible nature by which W grew the federal government though.

I think they both had some triumphs and they both made lots of mistakes. They were complex Presidents. I'd say I have a relatively negative view of Bush II for his economic handouts. He made the Federal Government much closer to the ATM we all know and love today. His Foreign Policy was so-so. Overall I give him very low marks economically, midling marks socially (I appreciate his pro-life work but attempting to ban Gay Marriage and Flag Burning via Constitutional Amendments are odious), and below average marks on Foreign Policy (Afghanistan was a good move and the Iraq War was not nearly the catastrophe it is made out to be today.)

As for Bush I. He gets much better marks economically (with the exception of breaking his promise to raise taxes). Then again I care more about balancing the budget than I do mindlessly cutting taxes. I appreciate his Foreign Policy as a mark of the Cold War. I would also note my incredibly love for his engineering of trade deals with Japan and of course, one of the greatest deals America has ever entered into, NAFTA. If you can't tell, I'm a Free Trade Fanatic.

However, as you can probably guess, I would have voted for them both twice as the preferable option in their respective elections of 88, 92, 00, and 04.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I prefer the first Bush. Conservatives often make too many apologies for the incredible nature by which W grew the federal government though.

I think they both had some triumphs and they both made lots of mistakes. They were complex Presidents. I'd say I have a relatively negative view of Bush II for his economic handouts. He made the Federal Government much closer to the ATM we all know and love today. His Foreign Policy was so-so. Overall I give him very low marks economically, midling marks socially (I appreciate his pro-life work but attempting to ban Gay Marriage and Flag Burning via Constitutional Amendments are odious), and below average marks on Foreign Policy (Afghanistan was a good move and the Iraq War was not nearly the catastrophe it is made out to be today.)

As for Bush I. He gets much better marks economically (with the exception of breaking his promise to raise taxes). Then again I care more about balancing the budget than I do mindlessly cutting taxes. I appreciate his Foreign Policy as a mark of the Cold War. I would also note my incredibly love for his engineering of trade deals with Japan and of course, one of the greatest deals America has ever entered into, NAFTA. If you can't tell, I'm a Free Trade Fanatic.

However, as you can probably guess, I would have voted for them both twice as the preferable option in their respective elections of 88, 92, 00, and 04.

My favorite Bush was Prescott Bush, GHW Bush's father who was Sen of CT. Before my time, but I've read about him and seen interviews with him. He was more in line with Nelson Rockefeller's liberal wing than he was with Robert Taft's conservative wing. Like Rockefeller, he was able to be both pro-business and pro-labor without it somehow being contradictory. Personality-wise, he was more like the first Bush -- very serious and unexciting. However, he was a lot less politically adept than both GHW Bush and GW Bush. After Prescott, I'd have to go with Jeb Bush. Then, GHW Bush. Then it's a tie with GW Bush and GP Bush (Jeb's son). I think both might have strengths but they're out of their league at higher office. Record aside, I'd put GW Bush ahead of GP Bush, but I lower GW Bush because of the Iraq War and Great Recession 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Why did he do it?  Because he's an egomaniac incapable of true strategic thought.  And sure, as you said in a much nicer way, it was also a threat to the rest of the Republican party:  stroke my ego, or else I'll help Hillary get elected.

He's incapable of true strategic thought.... yet he built a real estate empire and apparently masterminded a grand collusion scheme with Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, servo75 said:

He's incapable of true strategic thought.... yet he built a real estate empire and apparently masterminded a grand collusion scheme with Russia.

The narrative is generally that Putin masterminded it. I haven’t researched his business career as much as others but the number of bankruptcies and failed projects outside is one area of expertise is noticeable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Americans suffer bankruptcies. The more you have, the more chances you take and the more successful you've been, and no one gets ahead without taking risks. Sometimes those risks turn out bad. I still fall back on the following fact: Donald Trump has personally created more private sector jobs than Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and AOC combined. But then again, anything's higher than zero.  All of them have been in government their entire lives. They know how to create bureaucratic agencies and "invest" in our economy with other people's money, but if they ever had to make it on their own in the real world they wouldn't have nearly the wealth and power that they have now. If I had a choice between never going bankrupt, never having failures, and having some failures and a few billion dollars, I'd take the latter in a heartbeat and most would. It's a matter of perspective. No matter what one may think of Donald Trump, he's been hugely successful in spite of any legal or financial issues, and knows what it takes to get an economy going a hell of a lot more than a politician who's never even HELD, much less created, a real world job. But we've been so taught as a society that wealth=greed, that making money and getting rich is wrong and no one makes a million dollars, much less a billion unless they somehow "stole" it or "exploited" someone to get it. As a society we've been taught to look down on private sector success and it's a real shame, since taking risks and suffering failures along the way is the only way anything good, whether it be wealth, jobs, or technology, has happened in this country. Every major technology, every invention, everything that's made our lives great in modern America has come out of free enterprise, hard work and risk taking. And yes people fell, and fell hard along the way. Some call them robber barons but never explained where we'd be without the fruits that their labor and investment created, whether it be wealth, jobs, inventions, technology, or making things that improve people's lives that they never even knew they wanted. That to me is a quality to be admired because it means they had the guts to take the risk in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

His running in 2016 as a Republican was pure pragmatism

Well, duuuuh! :) That's what he is, a pragmatist. Most of the people on the right (perhaps @Reagan04 excepted), don't like him because they think he's a phony conservative. Well, in a sense he is. He was always more pragmatic than ideological, and his supporters know that. We knew we weren't getting a Ted Cruz or a Ron Paul, but Republican voters have tried doing things the nice way. Nominating straight arrow Mitt Romney or war hero John McCain only to have them melt under the hot glare of the Democrat candidate. In short, we tried "presidential" in every election since 1988, and it's gotten us nowhere. So the American voters rolled the dice on someone who was... shall we say unconventional.

<rant>

And to all the never-Trump Republicans out there who think Trump is ruining the GOP, I just have to say this... We TRIED doing it your way, and where has it gotten us? Huh? More endless wars, more debt, more neocon policies, more feckless spineless GOP candidates and Congresspeople, and falling further and further behind in the culture wars because as soon as someone on the left called you a racist you cowered in the corner and apologized for your values!!!  Maybe if we had Republican Presidents who stood up for themselves and their values, and held true to convictions, and stopped playing Marty McFly to the Democrats' Biff Tannen things would be different. Maybe if the 2010 "Tea Party" class hadn't melted down at the first sight of opposition. Maybe if the GOP hadn't made themselves the Democrats' whipping boys in Congress after Congress, and they hadn't ceded every cultural institution to the left. If previous Republicans hadn't taken the abuse from the media and said, "Thank you sir may I have another," stood up for conservative principles IN THE FIRST PLACE, focused less on placating Democrats than fighting them, we wouldn't be in the situation we are. So all the pathetic spineless gutless never-Trump Republican politicians out there, who think you can win elections with charts and graphs of Austrian Economics... I'm talking to YOU George W. Bush, George Will, Bill Krystol, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham and all the rest of you no-good losers. YOU created Trump just as much as the left did, and now you have the nerve to complain about him? You have the truth, history, economics, and all the Americans' kitchen table issues on your side. This IS a center right nation that wants low taxes, wants to be left alone by government, wants more choice in health care, education, and yes marriage and "pharmaceutical freedom," who want law and order, who believe that illegal aliens are cheating Americans, particularly lower class and union workers, out of a living. The American people ARE idelogicaly on your side but you BLEW it! You gave an inch and the left took 10 miles! You didn't articulate yourselves and when the left called you racist for your beliefs you went running to the corner to apologize like the pusillanimous cowards that you are.  If you'd done your goddamn jobs over the past 32 years, actually learned to communicate your values, get into the inner cities, make serious plays for the black vote, and stopped worrying about not being invited to the right D.C. cocktail parties, and hadn't handed over every major academic and cultural institution over the far left with barely even a fight, maybe we'd have a President Cruz right now.

</rant>

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, servo75 said:

He's incapable of true strategic thought.... yet he built a real estate empire and apparently masterminded a grand collusion scheme with Russia.

He inherited a real estate empire

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

He inherited a real estate empire

Okay... yeah he got $1M from his father, but what of that? Last I checked, it takes money to make money. Few business people get started without loans or assistance. Many many people have gotten or inherited or won much larger fortunes than that and pissed it away. Most lottery winners end up broke because they don't manage money well, mis-invest it or otherwise waste it. Many sports stars earned 10 times that much and ended up bankrupt. It's not what you inherit, it's what you do with that inheritance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

He inherited a real estate empire

And had four corporate bankruptcies, but used a disingenuous corporate loophole to have a front corporation be bankrupted instead, creating the façade that his own financial portfolio - and reputation - are unblemished. Modern big corporate business law is often as despicable as the Oath of Omerta.

7 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Maybe if we had Republican Presidents who stood up for themselves and their values, and held true to conviction

Trump doesn't show any strong values or convictions to stand up for, other than his own ego and narcissism. He CERTAINLY doesn't stand up for - or seem to even personally believe or embrace - the values or convictions of any of the main ideological camps of the Republican Party of the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Off topic but do you own one of the buttons that is your profile picture?

Speaking of profile pictures, when are you going to pick one and stick with it? LOL 😜

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Okay... yeah he got $1M from his father, but what of that? Last I checked, it takes money to make money. Few business people get started without loans or assistance. Many many people have gotten or inherited or won much larger fortunes than that and pissed it away. Most lottery winners end up broke because they don't manage money well, mis-invest it or otherwise waste it. Many sports stars earned 10 times that much and ended up bankrupt. It's not what you inherit, it's what you do with that inheritance.

This suggests he was lent $60.7 million (worth about $150 million today). I think most of us on this forum would likely grow that, if we were inclined towards profit and/or greed. He also inherited connections that his father had and money to have people take his exams for him. He later inherited $400+ million. 

Your claim that it takes money to make money is one of the central problems with US capitalism. That statement alone shows that such a system is incline to helps some more than others. I'm not anti-capitalist, but I believe in reducing its serious flaws. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trumps-small-loan-from-his-father-was-more-like-60point7-million-nyt.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Okay... yeah he got $1M from his father, but what of that? Last I checked, it takes money to make money. Few business people get started without loans or assistance. Many many people have gotten or inherited or won much larger fortunes than that and pissed it away. Most lottery winners end up broke because they don't manage money well, mis-invest it or otherwise waste it. Many sports stars earned 10 times that much and ended up bankrupt. It's not what you inherit, it's what you do with that inheritance.

His father did a lot more than that.  He made connections for him and let him take over his $500M business.  Some sources say Fred Trump gifted Donald well over $1B.  At best you can say Trump slightly grew an already existing real estate business.  He didn't create anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Most of the people on the right (perhaps @Reagan04 excepted), don't like him because they think he's a phony conservative.

No that's exactly why I don't like him. He is the most tyrannical President since Lyndon Johnson.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

And to all the never-Trump Republicans out there who think Trump is ruining the GOP, I just have to say this... We TRIED doing it your way,

Actually, no, no we have never tried it my way. Do I have serious disagreements with the Bushes and McCain? Of course. But Trump was 10 steps backwards. I'd take Romney over Trump any day. That doesn't mean I still wouldn't take Justin Amash over Mitt Romney any day either way.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

More endless wars, more debt, more neocon policies, more feckless spineless GOP candidates and Congresspeople

lmao kinda sounds like Trump. Funny how that works.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

and falling further and further behind in the culture wars because as soon as someone on the left called you a racist you cowered in the corner and apologized for your values!!! 

Ok so I'm not *quite* sure what this means. I'm not sure if you're referring to Marriage Equality or what? I don't know how much of the phony "culture war" you buy into. But it's amazing that you think that the Bush administrations were golden ages of progress for racism. They weren't. Like I said earlier we haven't tried my way because we haven't had a Republican Party that has gotten serious about fixing systemic racism.. ever. Also, George W. Bush was still all in favor of voter supression so I'm not entirely sure what you think he was bending over about regarding race.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Maybe if we had Republican Presidents who stood up for themselves and their values, and held true to convictions, and stopped playing Marty McFly to the Democrats' Biff Tannen things would be different. Maybe if the 2010 "Tea Party" class hadn't melted down at the first sight of opposition. Maybe if the GOP hadn't made themselves the Democrats' whipping boys in Congress after Congress,

Maybe if we didn't make fools of ourselves by calling the Editor of the Harvard Law review a Kenyan Muslim instead of engaging on real issues? Idk just a thought.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

adn't ceded every cultural institution to the left.

Again what is this.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

If previous Republicans hadn't taken the abuse from the media and said, "Thank you sir may I have another," stood up for conservative principles IN THE FIRST PLACE, focused less on placating Democrats than fighting them, we wouldn't be in the situation we are. So all the pathetic spineless gutless never-Trump Republican politicians out there, who think you can win elections with charts and graphs of Austrian Economics... I'm talking to YOU George W. Bush, George Will, Bill Krystol, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Lindsey Graham and all the rest of you no-good losers. Y

It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that you think any of the people you mention subscribe to Austrian school economics. At best they pay lip service to Chicago school but none of them even come close to approaching the genius or style of Ludwig von Mises or Friedriech Hayek. Also calling McConnell and Graham Never Trumpers is just disingenuous.

Also I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying right-wing economics don't win elections but racist dogwhistles and culture wars bullshit does as opposed to serious discussions about actual liberty and actual equality?

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

YOU created Trump just as much as the left did, and now you have the nerve to complain about him? You have the truth, history, economics, and all the Americans' kitchen table issues on your side. This IS a center right nation that wants low taxes, wants to be left alone by government, wants more choice in health care, education, and yes marriage and "pharmaceutical freedom," who want law and order, who believe that illegal aliens are cheating Americans, particularly lower class and union workers, out of a living. The American people ARE idelogicaly on your side but you BLEW it! You gave an inch and the left took 10 miles! You didn't articulate yourselves and when the left called you racist for your beliefs you went running to the corner to apologize like the pusillanimous cowards that you are.

The lack of self-awareness here is breath taking.

1 hour ago, servo75 said:

If you'd done your goddamn jobs over the past 32 years, actually learned to communicate your values, get into the inner cities, make serious plays for the black vote, and stopped worrying about not being invited to the right D.C. cocktail parties, and hadn't handed over every major academic and cultural institution over the far left with barely even a fight, maybe we'd have a President Cruz right now.

And so, rightfuly, logically, of course, we nominate an incompetent conman who values authority above all else and continually alienates every demographic we need in order to be a viable political party. Smooth move, smooth move.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, servo75 said:

He's incapable of true strategic thought.... yet he built a real estate empire and apparently masterminded a grand collusion scheme with Russia.

Real estate empire was done by being a bully with unlimited funding.  Few could afford to challenge him.

He isn’t the mastermind of the Russian scheme, he’s the puppet too stupid to question his own strings.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 7:17 PM, vcczar said:

Your claim that it takes money to make money is one of the central problems with US capitalism.

Well, what's the alternative? How else would you make money? Would you plant trees and grow it? How do you start NY business without capital? Whether it's gained through loans, gifts, or winning the lottery, try getting an invention or company off the ground without it. Truth is, without "greed" as so many would put it, so much of the wealth, jobs, and technological innovations we have wouldn't have happened. Using that word is deliberate, I think, to give wealth negative connotations. It's because of income inequality, or more precisely the promise of it, and the pursuit of profit that motivates people. And yes, people will get filthy rich off doing that. So what? The Bernie Sanders types imply that wealth and inequality in and of themselves are a problem that must be "corrected" by government.

In the pre-Obama days, Democrats and Republicans generally agreed on one thing about taxes, that they were strictly for funding the necessary functions of government. Left and right would disagree on what those functions were, or tweak taxes a few percent here and there, a few billion for this program instead of that, but mostly were in fundamental agreement. The modern left seems to view taxes differently, as either a punishment or a way to decrease inequality simply for its own sake. Such redistribution hurts everyone because the people who previously worked hard to earn a profit will lose motivation (why should I develop that breakthrough drug or vaccine if the government, knowing nothing about what it costs to do so, will artificially limit my prices) and wealth production goes down.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 8:21 PM, Reagan04 said:

No that's exactly why I don't like him. He is the most tyrannical President since Lyndon Johnson.

Actually, no, no we have never tried it my way. Do I have serious disagreements with the Bushes and McCain? Of course. But Trump was 10 steps backwards. I'd take Romney over Trump any day. That doesn't mean I still wouldn't take Justin Amash over Mitt Romney any day either way.

lmao kinda sounds like Trump. Funny how that works.

Ok so I'm not *quite* sure what this means. I'm not sure if you're referring to Marriage Equality or what? I don't know how much of the phony "culture war" you buy into. But it's amazing that you think that the Bush administrations were golden ages of progress for racism. They weren't. Like I said earlier we haven't tried my way because we haven't had a Republican Party that has gotten serious about fixing systemic racism.. ever. Also, George W. Bush was still all in favor of voter supression so I'm not entirely sure what you think he was bending over about regarding race.

Maybe if we didn't make fools of ourselves by calling the Editor of the Harvard Law review a Kenyan Muslim instead of engaging on real issues? Idk just a thought.

Again what is this.

It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that you think any of the people you mention subscribe to Austrian school economics. At best they pay lip service to Chicago school but none of them even come close to approaching the genius or style of Ludwig von Mises or Friedriech Hayek. Also calling McConnell and Graham Never Trumpers is just disingenuous.

Also I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying right-wing economics don't win elections but racist dogwhistles and culture wars bullshit does as opposed to serious discussions about actual liberty and actual equality?

The lack of self-awareness here is breath taking.

And so, rightfuly, logically, of course, we nominate an incompetent conman who values authority above all else and continually alienates every demographic we need in order to be a viable political party. Smooth move, smooth move.

I think you're taking me way too literally here. I'm making a VERY general point that the Republican Party has failed to stand up for its values for a long time, and that their reaction to the usual charges of "racism" by the left were to apologize for their views so they weren't called bad names by the media. Even if you don't like the rise of Donald Trump, I'm saying he is the symptom, not the disease. 30 years of spineless Republicans who talk conservative values but melt under the hot lights of the Washington establishment. The Republican Party has been in cahoots with the Democrats in sending our jobs overseas, selling us out to the highest bidder. It's really not a complicated statement, I think you're trying to read all this "MAGA" stuff into it which is really not my intent.

 

On 8/4/2020 at 8:21 PM, Reagan04 said:

But it's amazing that you think that the Bush administrations were golden ages of progress for racism

Huh? Did I say that? I don't recall making such a statement. My point was only that the Democrats always play the race card when Republicans bring up fiscally conservative and small government values, and instead of standing up for those principles they apologize for them to avoid being called mean names.

I get that you hate Trump, but please stop trying to read "Trump is the greatest, MAGA MAGA MAGA" between every line I write. It's gotten to the point where you seem to feel a reflexive need to insert insults to the President even when they have nothing to do with the topic I'm bringing up. Please stop with the non-sequitur, I'm losing my patience with this! This whole thread is about trying to find common ground and I sense that you're trying to go out of your way to be argumentative. I'm saying that the GOP has been feckless at best since Reagan left office with the possible exception of Gingrich's speakership in 1995. Nothing more, nothing less. Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

x

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2020 at 8:21 PM, Reagan04 said:

I said earlier we haven't tried my way because we haven't had a Republican Party that has gotten serious about fixing systemic racism.

First, I mentioned nothing about systemic racism. Again, please stop telling me I'm saying things that I'm not saying. What I mean by "your way" has nothing to do with that, and I mean you as in the colloquial sense. None of this post was directed at you personally. I mean that when people complain about Trump's personality, his brashness, his in-your-face bully pulpit style, I'm saying the old genteel Marquess-of-Queensbury Republican Party has been ineffective at best. I'm not going to argue whether or not Trump is the solution to that, but really, what has the Republican Party done to combat left-wing policy over the last few decades, reduce spending and the deficit, closing unneeded agencies? Republicans have been too polite for too long and let the Democrats run all over them. You're way over-analyzing what I'm saying to try to get some meaning out of it that I did not intend.

And as for Republicans not fixing systemic racism, hmm... I seem to remember a man called Abraham Lincoln, something about a Civil War, and 13th-15th Amendments passed with little Democrat support, and Civil Rights Acts passed, again by Republicans over Democrat filibusters.

On 8/4/2020 at 8:21 PM, Reagan04 said:
On 8/4/2020 at 6:36 PM, servo75 said:

Maybe if we had Republican Presidents who stood up for themselves and their values, and held true to convictions, and stopped playing Marty McFly to the Democrats' Biff Tannen things would be different. Maybe if the 2010 "Tea Party" class hadn't melted down at the first sight of opposition. Maybe if the GOP hadn't made themselves the Democrats' whipping boys in Congress after Congress,

Maybe if we didn't make fools of ourselves by calling the Editor of the Harvard Law review a Kenyan Muslim instead of engaging on real issues? Idk just a thought.

Enough with the whataboutisms already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...