[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT
 

The Lunatic:

Silvanus:
Right, yes, but these are all from... over a decade ago, right?

Her presidential campaigns, and recent history, are supportive. There's no reasonable case to be made that the two candidates in the 2016 election were equivalent on this issue.

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

The Lunatic:

MrCalavera:
And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

But, in general I'd say expecting people who have believed things for 50+ years to suddenly have seen the light, and yet still keep making gaffs in regards to the issue is being unrealistic.

You know this applies to Trump too, right?

Saelune:
So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

Saelune:
You know this applies to Trump too, right?

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

No Evidence isnt Evidence

The Lunatic:

MrCalavera:
And that is different from litteraly any other politician, how?

Most politicians don't have the poor history Hillary does in regards to LGBT issues.

Apart from the ones currently in power you mean?

The Lunatic:
I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You didn't say you didn't vote against Trump, which means voting for Hillary, because any vote not for Hillary, even not voting at all, was a vote for Trump. Which means your politico-spiritual Nazi index is definitely non-zero, and since politico-spiritual Nazi index is binary, your index number is 1. Which is supported by your overall Agreeability Value of less than 1, and positive Outspokenness Ratio.

Eacaraxe:

The Lunatic:
I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You didn't say you didn't vote against Trump, which means voting for Hillary, because any vote not for Hillary, even not voting at all, was a vote for Trump. Which means your politico-spiritual Nazi index is definitely non-zero, and since politico-spiritual Nazi index is binary, your index number is 1. Which is supported by your overall Agreeability Value of less than 1, and positive Outspokenness Ratio.

For a second I thought you were being serious, in which case I was actually about to arguably 'defend' Lunatic. I am aware they are from the UK and thus could not vote even if they wanted to. However, The Lunatic is firmly of far-right views in line with Trump.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

Saelune:
You know this applies to Trump too, right?

I don't care. I didn't vote for Trump.

You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

undeadsuitor:

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
So can I take this to mean you are not going to back up your claims with evidence?

I already have.

No Evidence isnt Evidence

Oh, no evidence is evidence, but in this case it is evidence of false claims and disingenuousness.

The Lunatic:

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Silvanus:

The Lunatic:

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Hey, Silvanus, would it bother you to have equal rights even if the people giving them to us didn't want to?

Saelune:
Hey, Silvanus, would it bother you to have equal rights even if the people giving them to us didn't want to?

Well, it would bother me a little to know those in power-- who are supposedly ruling in my best interests-- are personally uninvested in my wellbeing.

But it wouldn't bother me nearly as much as those in power directly working against my best interests, as the Republicans and UK Conservatives do.

Silvanus:

Well, it would bother me a little to know those in power-- who are supposedly ruling in my best interests-- are personally uninvested in my wellbeing.

Institutions, and the people who run them, are almost entirely unconcerned with the wellbeing of individuals, at least at the level of any one specific individual. I think of every workplace I've ever been in, and (assuming you're reasonably personable and competent) you're valued by your colleagues, your boss, and maybe a bit further. But at some point after that, you're just a small, not very important and easily replaceable cog in a big machine.

The people who run things tend to care that the machine works as a whole, and don't give much of a damn about its components: you can be chewed up and spat you out so long the machine does what they want it to. Some in political power undoubtedly do think the function of the machine is to look after its own people... but even then they might have some strange ideas about what that means.

Agema:

Institutions, and the people who run them, are almost entirely unconcerned with the wellbeing of individuals, at least at the level of any one specific individual. I think of every workplace I've ever been in, and (assuming you're reasonably personable and competent) you're valued by your colleagues, your boss, and maybe a bit further. But at some point after that, you're just a small, not very important and easily replaceable cog in a big machine.

The people who run things tend to care that the machine works as a whole, and don't give much of a damn about its components: you can be chewed up and spat you out so long the machine does what they want it to. Some in political power undoubtedly do think the function of the machine is to look after its own people... but even then they might have some strange ideas about what that means.

There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

Silvanus:
There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

In a way. But the end effect of the two can be negligibly different depending on circumstances. One might suggest, for instance, that someone like Donald Trump is not particularly bigotted against various groups on a personal level, but it is technocratically expedient for him to act like it in order to run the country the way he wants.

Agema:

Silvanus:
There's a rather large difference between technocratic indifference and prejudiced hostility.

In a way. But the end effect of the two can be negligibly different depending on circumstances. One might suggest, for instance, that someone like Donald Trump is not particularly bigotted against various groups on a personal level, but it is technocratically expedient for him to act like it in order to run the country the way he wants.

I gave up on trying to reason that Trump is not bigoted, just apathetic, but no. Trump is a bigot. He might be greedy enough to accept money from those he hates, but he is a bigot.

Saelune:
You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

Nobody else in the thread is denying what Clinton has said about the LGBT community.
If you're willing to hold opinions which are counter to evidence, it's on you to prove them.

Google it.

Silvanus:

The Lunatic:

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Yeah, I guess Garry Johnson or any other third party candidates just don't exist.

If LGBT matters are so important to you, you should vote for a candidate who represents that, not somebody like Clinton for being the "Least Worst" of two people most likely to be president.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
You literally did not. You claimed Hillary said specific quotes. I then told you to cite these quotes, and you literally did not even try.

You support many of the same views Trump does and constantly defend Trump, his allies, his supporters, and criticize, often unfairly, his opposition and opponents.

You have given me no reason to believe that if you could have voted, that it would have been for anyone but Trump. I also think you just like pissing off left-wingers for the sake of pissing off left-wingers.

Nobody else in the thread is denying what Clinton has said about the LGBT community.
If you're willing to hold opinions which are counter to evidence, it's on you to prove them.

Google it.

Silvanus:

The Lunatic:

There's no evidence she's changed her believe aside from it now being popular.

If you just do what's popular, you're no ally of the LGBT community.

Then we had two choices: a candidate who supports LGBT causes but for disingenuous reasons, and a candidate who doesn't support them at all, and is outwardly hostile.

A candidate who supports LGBT causes for disingenuous reasons is at least not a direct threat.

Yeah, I guess Garry Johnson or any other third party candidates just don't exist.

If LGBT matters are so important to you, you should vote for a candidate who represents that, not somebody like Clinton for being the "Least Worst" of two people most likely to be president.

This post is you admitting you have nothing, surprising no one.

Saelune:
This post is you admitting you have nothing, surprising no one.

I've already provided evidence, if you want to disprove it, you will have to provide your own.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
This post is you admitting you have nothing, surprising no one.

I've already provided evidence, if you want to disprove it, you will have to provide your own.

Ok. Here is my evidence:

The Lunatic:
Oh no, a couple of assholes attacked a pride parade.
Let's round up every white guy and accuse them of being war criminals.

Strange, when people within the BLM movement was destroying shops, shooting people and generally being a complete load of assholes, we heard constantly that a few bad examples don't override the entire movement.

I guess the same doesn't apply when it's white people asking to uphold their freedom of speech. Seems a little racist to me.

It is you defending Nazis with barely even thinly veiled racism and homophobia.

There is currently more evidence here that YOU are anti-LGBT than Hillary Clinton. Your move.

Saelune:

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
This post is you admitting you have nothing, surprising no one.

I've already provided evidence, if you want to disprove it, you will have to provide your own.

Ok. Here is my evidence:

The Lunatic:
Oh no, a couple of assholes attacked a pride parade.
Let's round up every white guy and accuse them of being war criminals.

Strange, when people within the BLM movement was destroying shops, shooting people and generally being a complete load of assholes, we heard constantly that a few bad examples don't override the entire movement.

I guess the same doesn't apply when it's white people asking to uphold their freedom of speech. Seems a little racist to me.

It is you defending Nazis with barely even thinly veiled racism and homophobia.

There is currently more evidence here that YOU are anti-LGBT than Hillary Clinton. Your move.

.
lel what move the user got banned because of it.

You are a brick wall whenever other users try to explain to you that your views are not universally true.

TheIronRuler:

Saelune:

The Lunatic:

I've already provided evidence, if you want to disprove it, you will have to provide your own.

Ok. Here is my evidence:

The Lunatic:
Oh no, a couple of assholes attacked a pride parade.
Let's round up every white guy and accuse them of being war criminals.

Strange, when people within the BLM movement was destroying shops, shooting people and generally being a complete load of assholes, we heard constantly that a few bad examples don't override the entire movement.

I guess the same doesn't apply when it's white people asking to uphold their freedom of speech. Seems a little racist to me.

It is you defending Nazis with barely even thinly veiled racism and homophobia.

There is currently more evidence here that YOU are anti-LGBT than Hillary Clinton. Your move.

.
lel what move the user got banned because of it.

You are a brick wall whenever other users try to explain to you that your views are not universally true.

Maybe if the people telling me I was wrong weren't defending Nazis to do it.

I am not stupid. The people who most often disagree with me share the same right-wing ideology as each other. The Lunatic, CM156, Leg End and other users that have tried and failed against me all tend to agree on too many things.

Nazis are evil, that is just a fact. Anyone who wants to disagree with me about that is not worth agreeing with. I wont feel bad because I refuse to give bigotry a consideration.

The Lunatic:

Yeah, I guess Garry Johnson or any other third party candidates just don't exist.

If LGBT matters are so important to you, you should vote for a candidate who represents that, not somebody like Clinton for being the "Least Worst" of two people most likely to be president.

I'm not going to support Gary bloody Johnson because i find him hugely objectionable in a thousand other ways, and because even those causes on which we agree are better served by the Democrats.

I never indicated anywhere that LGBT issues are the only deciding factor, after all. All I did was point out the enormous gulf between Clinton's indifference and the Republicans' exceptional hostility.

Saelune:
I am not stupid. The people who most often disagree with me share the same right-wing ideology as each other. The Lunatic, CM156, Leg End and other users that have tried and failed against me all tend to agree on too many things.

Actually, the right wing is a pretty diverse area when it comes to ideology. The only really uniform underlying idea is that we tend to disagree with the direction society is heading.

CM156:

Saelune:
I am not stupid. The people who most often disagree with me share the same right-wing ideology as each other. The Lunatic, CM156, Leg End and other users that have tried and failed against me all tend to agree on too many things.

Actually, the right wing is a pretty diverse area when it comes to ideology. The only really uniform underlying idea is that we tend to disagree with the direction society is heading.

The only diversity is if they are willing to admit they are a White Supremacist, unwilling to admit they are a White Supremacist while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups, or unwilling to admit they are Republican while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups.

Basically you have people who call themselves Alt-Right, people who call themselves Republican, and people who call themselves Moderates/Centrists/Libertarians.

None of you ever stand up to eachother in any way that suggests you don't all agree with each other though.

Saelune:
The only diversity is if they are willing to admit they are a White Supremacist, unwilling to admit they are a White Supremacist while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups, or unwilling to admit they are Republican while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups.

From the way you're writing it, it sounds like you're accusing basically everyone on the right of being a white supremacist, either covertly or overtly.

None of you ever stand up to eachother in any way that suggests you don't all agree with each other though.

Au contraire. I can speak to right-wing meetups and chat groups, but I can attest that there are very strong and clear disagreements between those on the right regarding matter of policy and ideology.

CM156:

Au contraire. I can speak to right-wing meetups and chat groups, but I can attest that there are very strong and clear disagreements between those on the right regarding matter of policy and ideology.

You've gotta read more carefully. You're claiming that people on the right have disagreements with each other, and that's fine, but it didn't answer what Saelune actually said. There are words in there that I'm certain are very deliberately chosen.

Saelune:

None of you ever stand up to each other in any way that suggests you don't all agree with each other though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would any response short of full-throated rage count as "standing up to each other in a way that suggests we don't all agree"? I've debated with somewhat similarly-minded people about all sorts of things we disagree on: drug legalization, gun control, UBI, nuclear power, military policy, police brutality, economics, religion, religion, and religion. But none of those arguments ever involved one person denouncing the other person's hateful bigotry, so I'm not confident you would count them as disagreements.

CM156:
Actually, the right wing is a pretty diverse area when it comes to ideology. The only really uniform underlying idea is that we tend to disagree with the direction society is heading.

Oddly enough, those of us on the other side are exactly the same way.

Time to trot out the old "We're more alike than we think" chestnut.

... other than the fact that one side normally tries to limit the rights of fellow citizens, and that side considers it a limitation of Their Own Rights when the government and the rest of the population tells them no and to let people live.

CM156:

Saelune:
The only diversity is if they are willing to admit they are a White Supremacist, unwilling to admit they are a White Supremacist while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups, or unwilling to admit they are Republican while defending White Supremacists and condemning fictional violence by non-white groups.

From the way you're writing it, it sounds like you're accusing basically everyone on the right of being a white supremacist, either covertly or overtly.

None of you ever stand up to eachother in any way that suggests you don't all agree with each other though.

Au contraire. I can speak to right-wing meetups and chat groups, but I can attest that there are very strong and clear disagreements between those on the right regarding matter of policy and ideology.

tstorm823:

CM156:

Au contraire. I can speak to right-wing meetups and chat groups, but I can attest that there are very strong and clear disagreements between those on the right regarding matter of policy and ideology.

You've gotta read more carefully. You're claiming that people on the right have disagreements with each other, and that's fine, but it didn't answer what Saelune actually said. There are words in there that I'm certain are very deliberately chosen.

Saelune:

None of you ever stand up to each other in any way that suggests you don't all agree with each other though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would any response short of full-throated rage count as "standing up to each other in a way that suggests we don't all agree"? I've debated with somewhat similarly-minded people about all sorts of things we disagree on: drug legalization, gun control, UBI, nuclear power, military policy, police brutality, economics, religion, religion, and religion. But none of those arguments ever involved one person denouncing the other person's hateful bigotry, so I'm not confident you would count them as disagreements.

Full on rejection of Trump and McConnel. Full on rejection of all the bigoted Republican leaders that 'don't actually represent Republican views'. If all the Republicans in charge of the party are bigoted, how am I supposed to believe their views aren't a representation of the party as a whole?

Trump is a bigot and his policies are grounded on bigotry. How can I believe someone is against bigotry if they are willing to vote for Trump?

I legit honestly cannot think of any notable disagreements in the Republican party. Religion, guns, abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, etc. You look at Democrats and there is a clear fractioning, between your Bidens, Pelosis, Warrens, AOCs and Bernies. But where is the disagreement with Republicans? I am genuinely asking. If you or CM156 or anyone can provide some tangible examples, Id be interested in seeing them.

ObsidianJones:

... other than the fact that one side normally tries to limit the rights of fellow citizens, and that side considers it a limitation of Their Own Rights when the government and the rest of the population tells them no and to let people live.

We should probably be careful with accusations like this, considering that one of the trending politics topics on this very forum right now has a lot of people from the Other Side vocally advocating limiting the rights of people with certain beliefs, at best, and downright killing said people at worst. Combined with how several of the people advocating this curtailing of rights also likes to lump everyone on One Side together as sharing those beliefs, we've got the potential for a good example of pot calling kettle black.

That's not to say that the two are fully equivalent, of course, but the idea of limiting the rights and freedoms of people you disagree with is not a partisan issue, but rather a recurring trend in bipartisan politics, extremist ideologies and dysfunctional democratic systems.

Gethsemani:

ObsidianJones:

... other than the fact that one side normally tries to limit the rights of fellow citizens, and that side considers it a limitation of Their Own Rights when the government and the rest of the population tells them no and to let people live.

We should probably be careful with accusations like this, considering that one of the trending politics topics on this very forum right now has a lot of people from the Other Side vocally advocating limiting the rights of people with certain beliefs, at best, and downright killing said people at worst. Combined with how several of the people advocating this curtailing of rights also likes to lump everyone on One Side together as sharing those beliefs, we've got the potential for a good example of pot calling kettle black.

That's not to say that the two are fully equivalent, of course, but the idea of limiting the rights and freedoms of people you disagree with is not a partisan issue, but rather a recurring trend in bipartisan politics, extremist ideologies and dysfunctional democratic systems.

Both sides want to limit rights and freedoms. Its just about admitting that, and realizing that rights and freedoms aren't inherently good. The right wants to limit the rights and freedoms of immigrants, of non-Christians, of LGBT people, of pregnant women, of voters. The left wants to limit the rights and freedoms of white supremacists, of guns nuts, of religious extremists, of corporations.

Only complete anarchists (as in, abolish the entire concept of government, not anarcho-capitalists which are actually just corporate fascists and thus oxy-morons) are in favor of total freedom, but even they are against the rights and freedoms of those who want to exert control over others.

Gethsemani:

ObsidianJones:

... other than the fact that one side normally tries to limit the rights of fellow citizens, and that side considers it a limitation of Their Own Rights when the government and the rest of the population tells them no and to let people live.

We should probably be careful with accusations like this, considering that one of the trending politics topics on this very forum right now has a lot of people from the Other Side vocally advocating limiting the rights of people with certain beliefs, at best, and downright killing said people at worst. Combined with how several of the people advocating this curtailing of rights also likes to lump everyone on One Side together as sharing those beliefs, we've got the potential for a good example of pot calling kettle black.

That's not to say that the two are fully equivalent, of course, but the idea of limiting the rights and freedoms of people you disagree with is not a partisan issue, but rather a recurring trend in bipartisan politics, extremist ideologies and dysfunctional democratic systems.

Actually, Saelune got it. That was the point. Both sides are directly the same. The topics and subjects differ, but that seems to be a universal constant between the two. I left it specifically vague so anyone from whatever side they sit on could wonder which side I'm talking about or think about how their side practices said issue.

Saelune:

I legit honestly cannot think of any notable disagreements in the Republican party. Religion, guns, abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, etc. You look at Democrats and there is a clear fractioning, between your Bidens, Pelosis, Warrens, AOCs and Bernies. But where is the disagreement with Republicans? I am genuinely asking. If you or CM156 or anyone can provide some tangible examples, Id be interested in seeing them.

I don't mean this as a slight, but it's because you don't want to even think about Republicans. You believe they're against you and your interests and don't even want to know what they're saying. And when you don't know what they're saying, you don't know where they disagree. In just the current presidency, Obamacare wasn't repealed because some Republicans voted to keep it, the wall wasn't funded cause some Republicans were against it, there was a big pile of Republicans ready to block Trump's threatened Mexico tariffs (which luckily seem to be averted). Republicans don't agree on all those things you listed. On religion, sure they're almost all Christian, but that's America, the Democrats aren't far off. But as far as what to do with religion, they're not in lock step. The libertarian right and the religious right are certainly not in agreement about things like prayer in schools. There are certainly Republicans for reasonable gun control. The federal debate is very polarized, but that's because federal politics is often just about proposing bad legislation to make the other side have to vote against it on the record. Pro-choice Republican politicians are all gone from office, I admit, but they should be, along with pro-choice literally everyone. Voluntary abortion is going to be banned some day and the only questions will be whether or not things like abortion after rape count as voluntary and how the hell it lasted this long. Some of the most pro-immigration people in American politics are the god-dang Koch brothers. And the Republican position of "marriage isn't the federal government's job, it's up to the states to allow gay marriage or not" meant very different things depending on what state they were talking about.

Republicans have just as much internal disagreement as Democrats. Ted Cruz is not Mitch McConnell is not Rand Paul. These are very different people. But this idea that one party acts as a hive mind while the other has intellectual debate is prevalent on the right side as well, there are conservatives who describe Democrats the same way you describe Republicans. That's not because there aren't disagreements, that's because of where they get their information. A Republican is likely to get broad information from the media and then dive deeper into the people they agree with. I assume you get broad information from traditional media articles and then take deeper looks at people like Bernie and AOC. Those tradition media pieces aren't going to give people a nuanced view when there's barely enough space to describe even vague party positions on an issue, and even if they could, they wouldn't. Politicians and the people voting for them are in far less of a lockstep than the media portrays them because the media are the ones in lockstep. CNN and Fox don't have real philosophical disagreements on air because whole networks share script writers, and any disagreement portrayed is deliberate tokenism.

Saelune:
Both sides want to limit rights and freedoms. Its just about admitting that, and realizing that rights and freedoms aren't inherently good.

Now I just need to say that justice and equality are also not inherently good to go with this.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

I legit honestly cannot think of any notable disagreements in the Republican party. Religion, guns, abortion, immigration, LGBT rights, etc. You look at Democrats and there is a clear fractioning, between your Bidens, Pelosis, Warrens, AOCs and Bernies. But where is the disagreement with Republicans? I am genuinely asking. If you or CM156 or anyone can provide some tangible examples, Id be interested in seeing them.

I don't mean this as a slight, but it's because you don't want to even think about Republicans. You believe they're against you and your interests and don't even want to know what they're saying. And when you don't know what they're saying, you don't know where they disagree. In just the current presidency, Obamacare wasn't repealed because some Republicans voted to keep it, the wall wasn't funded cause some Republicans were against it, there was a big pile of Republicans ready to block Trump's threatened Mexico tariffs (which luckily seem to be averted). Republicans don't agree on all those things you listed. On religion, sure they're almost all Christian, but that's America, the Democrats aren't far off. But as far as what to do with religion, they're not in lock step. The libertarian right and the religious right are certainly not in agreement about things like prayer in schools. There are certainly Republicans for reasonable gun control. The federal debate is very polarized, but that's because federal politics is often just about proposing bad legislation to make the other side have to vote against it on the record. Pro-choice Republican politicians are all gone from office, I admit, but they should be, along with pro-choice literally everyone. Voluntary abortion is going to be banned some day and the only questions will be whether or not things like abortion after rape count as voluntary and how the hell it lasted this long. Some of the most pro-immigration people in American politics are the god-dang Koch brothers. And the Republican position of "marriage isn't the federal government's job, it's up to the states to allow gay marriage or not" meant very different things depending on what state they were talking about.

Republicans have just as much internal disagreement as Democrats. Ted Cruz is not Mitch McConnell is not Rand Paul. These are very different people. But this idea that one party acts as a hive mind while the other has intellectual debate is prevalent on the right side as well, there are conservatives who describe Democrats the same way you describe Republicans. That's not because there aren't disagreements, that's because of where they get their information. A Republican is likely to get broad information from the media and then dive deeper into the people they agree with. I assume you get broad information from traditional media articles and then take deeper looks at people like Bernie and AOC. Those tradition media pieces aren't going to give people a nuanced view when there's barely enough space to describe even vague party positions on an issue, and even if they could, they wouldn't. Politicians and the people voting for them are in far less of a lockstep than the media portrays them because the media are the ones in lockstep. CNN and Fox don't have real philosophical disagreements on air because whole networks share script writers, and any disagreement portrayed is deliberate tokenism.

Show me the proof. Show me Republicans standing up to Republicans and I will believe you, and not just because they are running for president.

You show me Graham shitting on Trump, and I will show Graham kissing his ass the next year. Same with Cruz. Hell, Trump is the only Republican standing up to other Republicans, but that's only when he feels even slightly slighted, which is easily and often, and then everyone is back in lockstep.

The proof is not there that Republicans oppose each other, not in any way that is worth a damn.

And not enough on the important issues either. If I am supposed to believe the Republican Party is not full of White Supremacists, then they need to actually do something about White Supremacists.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here