2016 Republican Thread

[DrunkBomber]

So I guess the Republican thread has simply turned into Gawker in 2016.

[greg775]

Greg, I'm asking you nicely, please stop with all the nicknames and the "Bernie baby!"

 

Seriously.

No problem. I'll stop at this exact moment.

[L. Ron Paultard]

Did Obama personally splinter the GOP? It's like blaming "social values/demonization of liberals" campaigns run by the Atwaters and Roves of the world for 20/24 years of GOP control before Clinton or 28/40 before 2008.

 

Run better candidates!...Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry weren't very good, and then you have the SC issue to blame the GOP being able to hold on in 2000 (thanks to that 20/24 run of presidents), as Gore foolishly ran against or away from Clinton with his populist campaign. Nader's votes also hurt...but then Republicans have almost cursed Ross Perot for the same reason, helping to elect Clinton with only 38.5% of the vote in 92.

 

Besides, the GOP has control of Congress, most governorships, a majority of state legislatures and even more local boards like city councils and school boards.

 

 

 

 

Politics are boring time-waste, to be honest. As an idealist-optimist, hate having to go de-rigeur 'cynical' mode.

 

btw GOP all-against-all Civil War predates 2008. The party borderline personality disorder, if not disassociated identity, haha

 

Today performance is 3/4 of success. need certain special kind of candidate on Pres. level. need effortless liar.

 

Democrats learned it the hard way with all the Hubert H. Humphreys, George McGoverns, Walter Mondales of the world getting steamrolled.

 

Incidentally, contrary to the popular belief, Trump's a little too *honest*, too, you can tell how much of a bloody amateur he is. No filter; no professionals keeping him in check, it's part of the appeal, but hella risky. Honesty kills. Paul Ryan was honest in 2012: Medicare, Medicaid, SS needed reforming. There is a video clip taken backstage of Paul Ryan running into Bill Clinton. The "senior statesman" Clinton appeared to be patting Ryan on the back for his honesty & bold proposals. Setting partisanship aside. Almost as if passing the baton to the next generation...

 

Uh, except for one problem: while Clinton was complimenting the younger Paul Ryan, you KNOW what Slick Willy was gleefully thinking in that moment: "Ryan, you dumb-f*ck, congratulations - you just lost Romney the election, hahaha!"

 

Democrats eventually decided to grow up. Bill Clinton may be a textbook sociopath & a sex predator (when even freakin Christopher Hitchens can pick up the signs, whoa!), but there is no denying he's a brilliant politician/orator. The 2008 version of Obama, likewise = rockstar. that whole "post-racial, Centrist uniter" mask? Downright inspired!

 

Who's the GOP chosen one? Marco Rubio? Wilts under pressure. Sounds phony even when he's telling the truth. Love-hate relationship with small Evian water-bottles. Too hawkish. Questionable personal finances. The wrong 'kind' of Hispanic.

 

Scott Walker? Rick Perry? Jeb? All out of their depth intellectually. Puts to rest the cliche of governors automatically having a built-in advantage.

 

(Yes, Reagan was a Gov., but at the time California by itself was something like the 5th largest, dynamic GDP in the world. Plus dealing with Hollywood international glamour, various major aerospace testing grounds & naval bases; partaking in massive Cold War era nuke drills? In a sense it's as if Reagan already had quasi Presidential experience even b4 taking office. Either way, he acted the part, literally.)

 

It goes beyond individual candidates, tho. To my young generation, what's the ethos? What's the choice?

 

-New Democrats: "free sh*t & lots of sex, yay!"

-Repubs: "eat your vegetables & get off my lawn. Ba-ba-ba-Barbara Ann!!!"

 

Now which one do you think the Millenials will instinctively/subconsciously gravitate to, huh? lmao! Personal responsibility, hard-work, sacrifice, patience blablabla - no thanks!........ weed, video games and/or sosh-media, riding the Chad-C*ck-Carousel, selfies, safe-spaces ------> now that's living ("Tinnnderrrr!")

 

#digress

 

.

 

Caulfield, forget the flawed early polling: Bernie Sanders will get crushed by Donnie Honeybadger's throbbing mixed-metaphor in November. Even demographics won't help. Just as, say, that weird little cult-leader Ron Paul would have been eaten alive in the 2012 General Election (even by someone like Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley.)

 

 

 

----

 

Mail-bride status: 'ambilagus'

-Turn-ons: shiny things, Krokodyl

-Turn-offs: ugly people; judgmental looks; Americans beer-belly; Cialis.

 

----

 

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by L. Ron Paultard

[greg775]

Politics are boring time-waste, to be honest. As an idealist-optimist, hate having to go de-rigeur 'cynical' mode.

 

btw GOP all-against-all Civil War predates 2008. The party borderline personality disorder, if not disassociated identity, haha

 

Today performance is 3/4 of success. need certain special kind of candidate on Pres. level. need effortless liar.

 

Democrats learned it the hard way with all the Hubert H. Humphreys, George McGoverns, Walter Mondales of the world getting steamrolled.

 

Incidentally, contrary to the popular belief, Trump's a little too *honest*, too, you can tell how much of a bloody amateur he is. No filter; no professionals keeping him in check, it's part of the appeal, but hella risky. Honesty kills. Paul Ryan was honest in 2012: Medicare, Medicaid, SS needed reforming. There is a video clip taken backstage of Paul Ryan running into Bill Clinton. The "senior statesman" Clinton appeared to be patting Ryan on the back for his honesty & bold proposals. Setting partisanship aside. Almost as if passing the baton to the next generation...

 

Uh, except for one problem: while Clinton was complimenting the younger Paul Ryan, you KNOW what Slick Willy was gleefully thinking in that moment: "Ryan, you dumb-f*ck, congratulations - you just lost Romney the election, hahaha!"

 

Democrats eventually decided to grow up. Bill Clinton may be a textbook sociopath & a sex predator (when even freakin Christopher Hitchens can pick up the signs, whoa!), but there is no denying he's a brilliant politician/orator. The 2008 version of Obama, likewise = rockstar. that whole "post-racial, Centrist uniter" mask? Downright inspired!

 

Who's the GOP chosen one? Marco Rubio? Wilts under pressure. Sounds phony even when he's telling the truth. Love-hate relationship with small Evian water-bottles. Too hawkish. Questionable personal finances. The wrong 'kind' of Hispanic.

 

Scott Walker? Rick Perry? Jeb? All out of their depth intellectually. Puts to rest the cliche of governors automatically having a built-in advantage.

 

(Yes, Reagan was a Gov., but at the time California by itself was something like the 5th largest, dynamic GDP in the world. Plus dealing with Hollywood international glamour, various major aerospace testing grounds & naval bases; partaking in massive Cold War era nuke drills? In a sense it's as if Reagan already had quasi Presidential experience even b4 taking office. Either way, he acted the part, literally.)

 

It goes beyond individual candidates, tho. To my young generation, what's the ethos? What's the choice?

 

-New Democrats: "free sh*t & lots of sex, yay!"

-Repubs: "eat your vegetables & get off my lawn. Ba-ba-ba-Barbara Ann!!!"

 

Now which one do you think the Millenials will instinctively/subconsciously gravitate to, huh? lmao! Personal responsibility, hard-work, sacrifice, patience blablabla - no thanks!........ weed, video games and/or sosh-media, riding the Chad-C*ck-Carousel, selfies, safe-spaces ------> now that's living ("Tinnnderrrr!")

 

#digress

 

.

 

Caulfield, forget the flawed early polling: Bernie Sanders will get crushed by Donnie Honeybadger's throbbing mixed-metaphor in November. Even demographics won't help. Just as, say, that weird little cult-leader Ron Paul would have been eaten alive in the 2012 General Election (even by someone like Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley.)

 

 

 

----

 

Mail-bride status: 'ambilagus'

-Turn-ons: shiny things, Krokodyl

-Turn-offs: ugly people; judgmental looks; Americans beer-belly; Cialis.

 

----

 

.

 

I read this but can't figure your conclusion. Who is the candidate the fun seeking millenials prefer? Are the young ones even going to bother to vote?

[cabiness42]

OK, I don't read the National Review, or any such publication that is so extremely slanted left or right, but a friend shared this article with me, and if you still think abortion should be legal for anything other than extreme circumstances after the first trimester, I encourage you to read this:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4301...nism-march-life

 

After injecting the hormone into the patient’s womb, the doctor left the syringe standing upright on her belly. Then, Selzer wrote, “I see something other than what I expected here. . . . It is the hub of the needle that is in the woman’s belly that has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.” He realized he was seeing the fetus’s desperate fight for life. And as he watched, he saw the movement of the syringe slow down and then stop. The child was dead. Whatever else an unborn child does not have, he has one thing: a will to live. He will fight to defend his life.

[ron883]

OK, I don't read the National Review, or any such publication that is so extremely slanted left or right, but a friend shared this article with me, and if you still think abortion should be legal for anything other than extreme circumstances after the first trimester, I encourage you to read this:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4301...nism-march-life

Why do you want to bring children into this world that aren't wanted or would be going to a bad household? That's my issue with anti abortion folk. They don't give a s*** what happens to the kid once they are born. Don't give a s*** about the social or economic effects of banking abortion. Let's be real, we have a population problem. It sounds cold, but life isn't fair for everybody. We need to start limiting the population.

Edited January 23, 2016 by ron883

[cabiness42]

That's my issue with anti abortion folk. They don't give a s*** what happens to the kid once they are born. Don't give a s*** about the social or economic effects of banking abortion.

 

That's a myth perpetrated by the abortion industry and their lobby. There are waiting lists to adopt babies. People are adopting babies from Russia and Africa because they can't get babies in America.

[pettie4sox]

It's not necessarily being pro whatever but when you start telling a woman what to do with her body, you've already crossed the line.

[cabiness42]

It's not necessarily being pro whatever but when you start telling a woman what to do with her body, you've already crossed the line.

 

It's being very ignorant of science when you call the human being growing inside of her a part of her body. It's a separate human body. Did you read the story? The part about the 18 week old fetus fighting to avoid death? It's pretty nice and neat to put that picture out of your mind and instead think of it as just a blob of tissue attached to a woman.

 

The "telling a woman what to do with her body" is the most tired argument out there. It's trying to deflect the argument away from the humanity of the person inside and that person's rights. I'm telling a woman what she can or can't do to her child, the same way every government in the world tells women what they can or can't do to their children after they're born.

 

Just state your true position: you're perfectly fine with the legality of killing a defenseless human being. That's what abortion is, regardless of the circumstances. Everybody who is on that side of the argument will do everything except say that, but in the end that's exactly what it is.

 

Until 1863, lots of people thought there was another class of human beings that didn't deserve any rights either.

Edited January 24, 2016 by HickoryHuskers

[farmteam]

It's being very ignorant of science when you call the human being growing inside of her a part of her body. It's a separate human body. Did you read the story? The part about the 18 week old fetus fighting to avoid death? It's pretty nice and neat to put that picture out of your mind and instead think of it as just a blob of tissue attached to a woman.

 

The "telling a woman what to do with her body" is the most tired argument out there. It's trying to deflect the argument away from the humanity of the person inside and that person's rights. I'm telling a woman what she can or can't do to her child, the same way every government in the world tells women what they can or can't do to their children after they're born.

 

Just state your true position: you're perfectly fine with the legality of killing a defenseless human being. That's what abortion is, regardless of the circumstances. Everybody who is on that side of the argument will do everything except say that, but in the end that's exactly what it is.

 

Until 1863, lots of people thought there was another class of human beings that didn't deserve any rights either.

No, it's really not. I'm not going to give the same rights to a being inside a womb as I would to an actual person.

[EvilMonkey]

Why do you want to bring children into this world that aren't wanted or would be going to a bad household? That's my issue with anti abortion folk. They don't give a s*** what happens to the kid once they are born. Don't give a s*** about the social or economic effects of banking abortion. Let's be real, we have a population problem. It sounds cold, but life isn't fair for everybody. We need to start limiting the population.

So you don't want children here who aren't wanted or going to a bad household. WHat about immigrants here that aren't wanted? People who don't give a s*** what happens to them once they are here as they are sealed in their gated communities and never have to face the consequences. Don't give a s*** about the economic efect as the jobs they compete for are beneath them. Let's be real, we have an economic problem here. it sounds cold, but life isn't fair for everybody. We need to start limiting immigration.

[pettie4sox]

It's being very ignorant of science when you call the human being growing inside of her a part of her body. It's a separate human body. Did you read the story? The part about the 18 week old fetus fighting to avoid death? It's pretty nice and neat to put that picture out of your mind and instead think of it as just a blob of tissue attached to a woman.

 

The "telling a woman what to do with her body" is the most tired argument out there. It's trying to deflect the argument away from the humanity of the person inside and that person's rights. I'm telling a woman what she can or can't do to her child, the same way every government in the world tells women what they can or can't do to their children after they're born.

 

Just state your true position: you're perfectly fine with the legality of killing a defenseless human being. That's what abortion is, regardless of the circumstances. Everybody who is on that side of the argument will do everything except say that, but in the end that's exactly what it is.

 

Until 1863, lots of people thought there was another class of human beings that didn't deserve any rights either.

 

I get it. It would be nice if everything was utopian when it came to this and there were no abortions at all. Alas, that is not reality. I'm not trying to deflect anything as that is a round about way of saying I don't care. It sucks that some people are just irresponsible, get pregnant and decide later that they don't want the pregnancy. They could give a kid up for adoption, sure. However, maybe the woman doesn't want to go through that ordeal or pay the hospital bills associated with it? At the end of the day, I am a live and let live person. You just cannot tell people how to live there lives and that includes how they handle their fertilized ovaries. It is what it is. There are laws to protect what's in the a woman's womb up to a certain amount of weeks and that's probably the best thing. Abortion is killing a human being, who is actually debating that?

 

Blacks were consider property and humans beings progressed regarding that issue to some extent. I don't think this situations are similarly or ever will be.

 

 

[cabiness42]

No, it's really not. I'm not going to give the same rights to a being inside a womb as I would to an actual person.

 

The being inside a womb is an actual person, to the extent that at 18 weeks development, the person can (futilely) attempt to avoid being killed. To deny personhood based on internal attachment to the mother is not really that much different than denying personhood based on skin color.

[cabiness42]

I get it. It would be nice if everything was utopian when it came to this and there were no abortions at all. Alas, that is not reality. I'm not trying to deflect anything as that is a round about way of saying I don't care. It sucks that some people are just irresponsible, get pregnant and decide later that they don't want the pregnancy. They could give a kid up for adoption, sure. However, maybe the woman doesn't want to go through that ordeal or pay the hospital bills associated with it? At the end of the day, I am a live and let live person. You just cannot tell people how to live there lives and that includes how they handle their fertilized ovaries. It is what it is. There are laws to protect what's in the a woman's womb up to a certain amount of weeks and that's probably the best thing. Abortion is killing a human being, who is actually debating that?

 

Blacks were consider property and humans beings progressed regarding that issue to some extent. I don't think this situations are similarly or ever will be.

 

Pretty much every person who is in favor of legalized abortion debates that. You are the first I've ever seen to actually admit that abortion is killing a human being and yet think it should be legal. Why should the legality stop at birth? The woman could still not want to go through the ordeal or pay hospital bills associated with caring for the child after birth. Why not let her kill the child up until the age of 3 months? 6 months? From a developmental standpoint, birth is really a fairly arbitrary point in the process.

[pettie4sox]

Pretty much every person who is in favor of legalized abortion debates that. You are the first I've ever seen to actually admit that abortion is killing a human being and yet think it should be legal. Why should the legality stop at birth? The woman could still not want to go through the ordeal or pay hospital bills associated with caring for the child after birth. Why not let her kill the child up until the age of 3 months? 6 months? From a developmental standpoint, birth is really a fairly arbitrary point in the process.

 

Come on H-squared, you are too smart for this. It really comes down to me saying, it's not my decision to make and you saying you want to force her hand. I am quite confident an overwhelming majority of women want the right to choose. Why should you take that away from them?

 

I just feel that no man has a say so on this topic. Now if you want to get into specifics like a woman wanting an abortion but a man wanting to keep it, etc, etc, then that's a different topic in it's entirety but that opens a whole new can of worms.

 

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Come on H-squared, you are too smart for this. It really comes down to me saying, it's not my decision to make and you saying you want to force her hand. I am quite confident an overwhelming majority of women want the right to choose. Why should you take that away from them?

 

I just feel that no man has a say so on this topic. Now if you want to get into specifics like a woman wanting an abortion but a man wanting to keep it, etc, etc, then that's a different topic in it's entirety but that opens a whole new can of worms.

 

What's wrong with what he said? Because you disagree with his opinion on the matter? You can feel that as a man you have no say on the topic, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean others do or have to feel the same way. He's right about birth being a completely arbitrary point from a developmental standpoint.

[cabiness42]

Come on H-squared, you are too smart for this. It really comes down to me saying, it's not my decision to make and you saying you want to force her hand. I am quite confident an overwhelming majority of women want the right to choose. Why should you take that away from them?

 

I just feel that no man has a say so on this topic. Now if you want to get into specifics like a woman wanting an abortion but a man wanting to keep it, etc, etc, then that's a different topic in it's entirety but that opens a whole new can of worms.

 

We all get a say in whether or not it's OK to kill a human being in every other circumstance. Somehow, a specific class of human beings is supposed to get their rights trumped by women?

 

Killing a human being 22 weeks before birth is not significantly medically nor scientifically different than killing a human being 22 weeks after birth. Saying that this is about a woman's right to choose is just an attempt to diminish that reality. Plus, there are already plenty of things that governments tell women that they can't do with their bodies. They can't ingest/inject certain drugs, they can't drive drunk, they can't assault/kill other people. Somehow, because pregnancy is unique to women, this suddenly becomes about the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body when clearly that is not the standard in any other circumstance.

[pettie4sox]

What's wrong with what he said? Because you disagree with his opinion on the matter? You can feel that as a man you have no say on the topic, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean others do or have to feel the same way. He's right about birth being a completely arbitrary point from a developmental standpoint.

 

 

Absolutely nothing is wrong with what he said. I just feel like this topic has already been debated ad nauseum. It doesn't matter, there is no right or wrong just people's opinions on the matter.

[pettie4sox]

We all get a say in whether or not it's OK to kill a human being in every other circumstance. Somehow, a specific class of human beings is supposed to get their rights trumped by women?

 

Killing a human being 22 weeks before birth is not significantly medically nor scientifically different than killing a human being 22 weeks after birth. Saying that this is about a woman's right to choose is just an attempt to diminish that reality. Plus, there are already plenty of things that governments tell women that they can't do with their bodies. They can't ingest/inject certain drugs, they can't drive drunk, they can't assault/kill other people. Somehow, because pregnancy is unique to women, this suddenly becomes about the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body when clearly that is not the standard in any other circumstance.

 

I'm not trying to diminish anything. That is projection! I am simply saying that the road to change on this topic is a daunting task. I personally do not see it regressing in the slightest. Women are stronger today than they have ever been in the past (not saying that's a bad thing for the record) and you will be met with a lot resistance. You might be trying to save the lives of the unborn but to them you're a misogynistic mouthbreather.

 

 

[cabiness42]

I'm not trying to diminish anything. That is projection! I am simply saying that the road to change on this topic is a daunting task. I personally do not see it regressing in the slightest. Women are stronger today than they have ever been in the past (not saying that's a bad thing for the record) and you will be met with a lot resistance. You might be trying to save the lives of the unborn but to them you're a misogynistic mouthbreather.

 

I think that says an awful lot about a group when all you want to do is save lives and they call you things like misogynist.

[pettie4sox]

I think that says an awful lot about a group when all you want to do is save lives and they call you things like misogynist.

 

Women have been oppressed for a long time. To them, it's about taking them back to the "good ole days."

[cabiness42]

Women have been oppressed for a long time. To them, it's about taking them back to the "good ole days."

 

Abortion is used to oppress women far more than women's advocacy groups realize. Getting rid of abortion would actually do a lot for women. Some, like the author of the article I posted, are starting to realize this after years of believing the opposite.

[illinilaw08]

Abortion is used to oppress women far more than women's advocacy groups realize. Getting rid of abortion would actually do a lot for women. Some, like the author of the article I posted, are starting to realize this after years of believing the opposite.

 

Explain how abortion is used to oppress women.

 

I understand the moral argument against abortion - an argument that stems from a basic distinction regarding when life begins. I may have a different interpretation, but I understand the argument and I understand why people are so passionate on that point.

 

To be quite honest, I would take the anti-abortion argument more seriously if those who wanted to stop abortions would give greater funding/access toward birth control and other means of stopping unplanned pregnancies. But it seems to me that the most vocal abortion opponents are also the ones who want to teach abstinence only and want to keep condoms and birth control out of people's hands...

 

 

 

 

[cabiness42]

Explain how abortion is used to oppress women.

 

I understand the moral argument against abortion - an argument that stems from a basic distinction regarding when life begins. I may have a different interpretation, but I understand the argument and I understand why people are so passionate on that point.

 

To be quite honest, I would take the anti-abortion argument more seriously if those who wanted to stop abortions would give greater funding/access toward birth control and other means of stopping unplanned pregnancies. But it seems to me that the most vocal abortion opponents are also the ones who want to teach abstinence only and want to keep condoms and birth control out of people's hands...

 

It is very unfortunate that the overwhelming majority of pro-life political candidates also hold those positions. I don't believe that the majority of people who are pro-life hold those positions. While the pro-life organizations don't generally take official stances on issues, the majority of people that I have come across in these organizations are also:

 

- in favor of education on and access to contraception in general (though the "morning after" pill is a sticking point)

- in favor of increased federal/state funding for women for medical care (other than abortion) during pregnancy

- in favor of an improved adoption system

- in favor of increased benefits for poor women who choose to keep their children

 

People who support Ted Cruz aren't really pro-life. They're hypocritical moralistic assholes who think they're pro-life. True pro-life people are desperate for a moderate, possibly even liberal pro-life candidate to vote for instead of Ted Cruz.

[EvilMonkey]

greg, I know you just LOVE Hillary so much, thought you might enjoy this.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team...erver-to-email/