All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Joker]

That's not it at all, though. I think everyone on here understands where conservative opinions come from and why people vote that way. Republicans aren't "conservatives" anymore, though. That party died with Bush 1.0.

Anyway, I'm not gonna spend my morning breaking it down for you. I honestly believe you're smart enough to understand how your post contradicts itself.

Maybe you should explain how it doesn't?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

1) As a Republican, I'm more likely to agree with the policy goals of Republicans than Democrats.

That doesn't answer specifically why you think McCain and Romney would have improved on the Presidency we did get.

You just don't want to give Obama any credit.

There's a reason his presidency correlated with a massive increase in Republican officeholders,

Partisan gerrymandering courtesy of redistricting in 2010. As well as racism.

...and at the end of it, enough voters picked Trump, probably the worst presidential candidate in generations over Obama's former Secretary of State.

The fact is Obama won 2 elections on the popular vote and electoral vote with substantial margins over his rival, and his approval ratings were so high he would have won a hypothetical third term had there been no limits against Trump. So that's a successful presidency by all objective measures.

Why is it so hard for you to give credit to Obama and the Democrat party platform?

As a Republican, I would probably disagree with the outcomes of a period of Democratic dominance.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it okay for the Republicans to have all 3 houses but that Democrats need to be restrained. Bipartisanship has to be two ways, surely you accept that. So why is it okay for the Republicans to have a free hand but when the Dems are set to take all three, you start calling for restrains and bipartisanship.

You do realize that bipartisanship is two way street right? Would you agree that the Republican party need to align with and pass some Democrat party goals and objectives, would you condemn McConnell's obstructionism of Obama's final two years in office? Would you condemn actions like stalling Garland's nomination and then rushing Barrett's?

Because otherwise, I am afraid there's no principle to your claims of bipartisanship. All that's there is cant.

[worstblogever]

My problem with Trump isn't that he's a Republican.

It's that he's a deranged, racist, proto-fascist, serial sexual predator and tax cheat who has lied to the people of this nation, betrayed our allies abroad, and utterly corrupted the institution of the American presidency (and then some).

My problem with Republicans is the stupid f***ers have let Trump do that with no pushback like the bunch of corrupt, spineless, racist cowards that I always knew they were.

Thought I'd delve into that so nobody gets to wave around some strawman about Democrats hating Trump "because he's a Republican". No, it's the above.

[ChangingStation]

Look, it's pretty clear that the reason he supports Biden is that he feels a continuation of Trump being in charge is damaging to the long term health of the Republican party.

[InformationGeek]

And here's Ron Johnson accusing of Hunter Biden of having child porn on the laptop he supposedly had.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And here's Ron Johnson accusing of Hunter Biden of having child porn on the laptop he supposedly had.

I think the Bidens should sue this guy because this is a serious actual criminal allegation a political figure is making. This is ridiculous libel.

[KOSLOX]

So these guys were just holding on to it while doing nothing to investigate THAT issue?

[shooshoomanjoe]

And here's Ron Johnson accusing of Hunter Biden of having child porn on the laptop he supposedly had.

Biden is so clean that the GOP are desperate to find dirt.

[babyblob]

And here's Ron Johnson accusing of Hunter Biden of having child porn on the laptop he supposedly had.

And you know the Qanonn nits and Hannity on Fox news are going to go nuts and run with this.

I mean wasnt the laptop already looked at?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

And you know the Qanonn nits and Hannity on Fox news are going to go nuts and run with this.

I mean wasnt the laptop already looked at?

If the tabloid had that they would have ran with it 1st wouldn't they. It seems they are PISSED its not swaying people so were getting them trying this now.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If the tabloid had that they would have ran with it 1st wouldn't they. It seems they are PISSED its not swaying people so were getting them trying this now.

The Dems need to start suing people. They can't let people make allegations like this and not prosecute them. It sets a bad social precedent.

Simply sue these fake news assholes for say $1trillion or some really exorbitant amount that will terrify the living daylights out of them.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The Dems need to start suing people. They can't let people make allegations like this and not prosecute them. It sets a bad social precedent.

Simply sue these fake news assholes for say $1trillion or some really exorbitant amount that will terrify the living daylights out of them.

They maybe waiting on FBI to finish. At last report the FBI is looking at this. If they determine a lot of e-mails are fakes and start pushing legal deals on shop owner (who we know will roll over on this) then your gonna see Biden and company likely jump into it.

[Mister Mets]

That's not it at all, though. I think everyone on here understands where conservative opinions come from and why people vote that way. Republicans aren't "conservatives" anymore, though. That party died with Bush 1.0.

Anyway, I'm not gonna spend my morning breaking it down for you. I honestly believe you're smart enough to understand how your post contradicts itself.

Maybe you should explain how it doesn't?

It's easier to show an example of something than an absence of it.

If you see a contradiction, you can point it out. But if I point out concepts that aren't contradictory, it's always possible that I'm skipping other stuff that is relevant.

That doesn't answer specifically why you think McCain and Romney would have improved on the Presidency we did get.

You just don't want to give Obama any credit.

I pointed out places I think Obama erred.

While I prefer a generic Republican to a generic Democrat, I do think McCain and Romney are better than generic Republicans, and handled themselves well during Trump's rise.

Romney has succeeded as an executive in three different fields, as CEO of Bain Capital, as President of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002, and as Governor of Massachusetts.

As a Senator, McCain had a record of bipartisan accomplishment, and was willing to take stands that were unpopular with his party.

Partisan gerrymandering courtesy of redistricting in 2010. As well as racism.

The 2010 midterms went badly for Democrats, and that came well before the redistricting as a result of the 2010 census. It's the same way the 2020 congressional elections aren't affected by the census that just ended. Racism isn't a great explanation for why more Republicans got elected to office, since Obama's election in 2008 corresponded to a great cycle for the party. I'm pretty sure voters knew he was black.

I would also suspect we'd see a similar political response if Democrats had elected a white guy with similar political positions as President in 2008.

The fact is Obama won 2 elections on the popular vote and electoral vote with substantial margins over his rival, and his approval ratings were so high he would have won a hypothetical third term had there been no limits against Trump. So that's a successful presidency by all objective measures.

Why is it so hard for you to give credit to Obama and the Democrat party platform?

You may be responding to some points I didn't make. I didn't vote for Obama, and I do prefer the Republican nominees who ran against him, but I'm not really claiming he's a terrible President.

I'm not sure the election wins are that meaningful. In American politics, parties tend to gain power and lose power. The Republican/ Democratic share of the popular vote has pretty much been a metronome since 1932.

A point may be that Republicans have lost the popular vote in two elections, although this was also in elections with major October surprises (it came out days before the 2000 election that George W Bush had a DUI in 1976; the Access Hollywood tapes.)

I suspect that if someone like Marco Rubio had been the Republican nominee in 2016, the party would have been clearly favored throughout the election, and he would have won by more. Instead, the Obama presidency was so unpopular his party lost to Donald Trump, after the guy was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Yes, it's bad for Republicans that he was their nominee. But it's also bad for Democrats that they lost to him.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it okay for the Republicans to have all 3 houses but that Democrats need to be restrained. Bipartisanship has to be two ways, surely you accept that. So why is it okay for the Republicans to have a free hand but when the Dems are set to take all three, you start calling for restrains and bipartisanship.

You do realize that bipartisanship is two way street right? Would you agree that the Republican party need to align with and pass some Democrat party goals and objectives, would you condemn McConnell's obstructionism of Obama's final two years in office? Would you condemn actions like stalling Garland's nomination and then rushing Barrett's?

Because otherwise, I am afraid there's no principle to your claims of bipartisanship. All that's there is cant.

There are two main things that may be conflated; bipartisanship and party control.

As a Republican, my usual order of preference is unified Republican control, followed by split government, followed by unified Democratic control.

At the moment, I'm willing to make an exception, because I don't like Trump and I think Biden is a decent man who has run a good presidential campaign. My order of preference for this election is split government, followed by unified Democratic control, followed by unified Republican control. But that's because it's an unusual election.

When Republicans eventually take both houses of Congress and the White House again, I would prefer that they reach out to Democrats in a similar way to how I prefer Democrats reach out to Republicans.

On judges, I think there has been escalation on both sides and I've written about that before.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...rk#post2736829

I am convinced that if the situation were reversed, Democrats would be doing the same thing. If a liberal judge had died in the last year of a Republican President's administration, a Democratic controlled Senate would delay the vote. If a conservative judge had died shortly before a presidential election, a Democratic President and Senate would push through a new candidate.

I'm not sure how to walk it back. Perhaps there should be some kind of reforms in a political environment where it's not clear which side will benefit (IE- a bill that doesn't take effect until 2025.)

On other policies, I would prefer compromises on contentious issues. Sometimes that'll be difficult as two sides want mutually exclusive things. Other times, deals can be made.

Look, it's pretty clear that the reason he supports Biden is that he feels a continuation of Trump being in charge is damaging to the long term health of the Republican party.

While I don't think Trump being in charge is good for the long term health of the Republican party, there's a lot that I don't like about him. Even if it wasn't hurting the party's reputation, I'd prefer a President who isn't as corrupt as Trump, or as willing to engage in conspiracy theories.

[ChangingStation]

They're trying to pull a Clinton, but the problem is they're having to rely on Fox News and Tabloids. Not only that but the source giving this kind of info is clearly biased and the veracity is questionable. I fully expect Trump to keep on trying to swing this until he ends up beating a dead horse into the ground.

[Username taken]

For many people here, their main problem with Trump is that he's a Republican. Everything else is extra. My problems with Trump are the things that distinguish him from McCain and Romney, two people I voted for who I think would have made good Presidents.

I am Republican, so I would generally prefer President Biden face some limitations.

The policies and proposals that Joe Biden can only get through on a party line vote are unlikely to be the kind of stuff I'll agree with him on.

I do think there is a major opening for bipartisanship right now, as it's in everybody's best interests. The country will do better if Biden succeeds. It's obviously essential for the Democratic party, but it's not as threatening for Republicans when the Democratic President is unlikely to go for a second term. As a Senator, Biden has had a significant record of bipartisan accomplishment, and will understand how Washington works better than most Presidents have.

While I do probably have a higher opinion of Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham than most people here do, I'm also not impressed by their Democratic opponents. In the races where I support Democrats, the Republicans are uniquely terrible or the Democrats seem better than average. Jamie Harrison and Amy McGrath don't seem to be on the level of Doug Jones or Mark Kelly.

The bolded part is true. Although, I didn't have a problem with Trump because he's a Republican. My main problem with him at the time was his character and later his politics and policies.

I don't generally support Republicans but I don't think Romney or McCain being President would have been so problematic for me. Unfortunately, the GOP has dived so far to the right and now openly supporting white identity politics that a lot of lunatics are now flag bearing Republicans. This in and of itself is a turn off to a lot of people and is one massive reason that a lot of minorities are going to come out to vote in November.