2016 Republican Thread

[CrimsonWeltall]

Team Clinton just pulls most of their stunts behind closed doors and then denies them all. It makes it easy for the surrogates to defend, and do the dirty work.

 

LOL, this is next level #BothSides.

 

She's doing all the same things, but it's all being hidden so we can't see it! Hillary Clinton has the Illuminati on her side.

[Y2HH]

LOL, this is next level #BothSides.

 

She's doing all the same things, but it's all being hidden so we can't see it! Hillary Clinton has the Illuminati on her side.

 

I think she's just smarter and more experienced about it. But we can still all see it. The question is do people actually care? It would seem no is the answer. People have expectations of corruption when it comes to politicians to the point where we just accept it now. That's what they wanted, too...and we gave it to them.

 

Basically, they've lowered the bar so far over time, that the very people whom we should hold to higher expectations we actually hold to lesser expectations.

[StrangeSox]

She is not actually doing the same things as Trump, though. If you or ss2k5 or anyone else is going to try to make that argument, I'll ask you to actually make a more detailed comparison rather than just a throw-away "a pox on both houses!" line.

 

LOL, this is next level #BothSides.

 

She's doing all the same things, but it's all being hidden so we can't see it! Hillary Clinton has the Illuminati on her side.

 

She is literally Satan so

Edited August 4, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Not voters.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/polit...inton.html?_r=0

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/02/i_think_tr...illary_clinton/

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016...Congress-follow

 

Conservative politicians and pundits who really didn't like Romney as a first choice didn't jump ship either, though, because as Obama said, nobody really questioned that Romney would be capable of doing the job--it was a debate on policy. Trump represents something unique in American politics, as these people defecting are pointing out, and we have never seen an equivalent Democratic nominee for a comparison. If Kanye West wins the Democratic nomination in 2024 and no prominent Democrats refuse to back him, you'll have a point. Until then, there simply isn't any data to back up a ~*both sides*~ argument one way or the other. Stop trying to normalize Donald Trump and his behavior.

Edited August 4, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

To be fair, had Trump privately been mad with the Khans and not went into a public fued, that would be the reaction of someone with a normal temperament. When Cindy Sheehan? kept trying to get a meeting with Bush and went crazier and crazier, he didn't go into a public feud with her.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I think she's just smarter and more experienced about it. But we can still all see it. The question is do people actually care? It would seem no is the answer. People have expectations of corruption when it comes to politicians to the point where we just accept it now.

 

The post wasn't about general political corruption/shadiness/dishonesty. It was about the new levels of crazy Trump is reaching, like bashing the families of fallen heroes.

[StrangeSox]

The post wasn't about general political corruption/shadiness/dishonesty. It was about the new levels of crazy Trump is reaching, like bashing the families of fallen heroes.

 

Hell, we have a clear-cut comparison on this specific topic. Pat Smith, stepmother of one of the guys killed in Benghazi, publicly and directly accused Hillary Clinton of causing her stepson's death in her speech during the RNC. Hillary responded with:

 

HILLARY CLINTON: Chris, my heart goes out to both of them. Losing a child under any circumstances, especially in this case, two State Department employees, extraordinary men both of them, two CIA contractors gave their lives protecting our country, our values. I understand the grief and the incredible sense of loss that can motivate that. As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard, I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.

 

That's it. The controversy was done at that point, really. She didn't respond by attacking Smith relentlessly for days, questioning her allegiance or her spouse or anything like that.

 

Compare that to how Trump continues to respond to Khan, as if Khan had accused Trump of causing his son's death.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think she's just smarter and more experienced about it. But we can still all see it. The question is do people actually care? It would seem no is the answer. People have expectations of corruption when it comes to politicians to the point where we just accept it now. That's what they wanted, too...and we gave it to them.

 

Basically, they've lowered the bar so far over time, that the very people whom we should hold to higher expectations we actually hold to lesser expectations.

 

They don't care. That's why they don't see it.

[StrangeSox]

They don't care. That's why they don't see it.

 

She is not actually doing the same things as Trump, though. If you or ss2k5 or anyone else is going to try to make that argument, I'll ask you to actually make a more detailed comparison rather than just a throw-away "a pox on both houses!" line.

 

It's even more bizarre that you highlight Republicans making the same argument the rest of are, that Trump is so far beyond 'normal' that they can't in good conscience vote for him and will actually vote for Hillary Clinton, but still can't see it. If some Republicans think Trump is so bad that they'll vote for Clinton, doesn't that say something about the equivalence you keep trying to draw here?

[CrimsonWeltall]

It's even more bizarre that you highlight Republicans making the same argument the rest of are, that Trump is so far beyond 'normal' that they can't in good conscience vote for him and will actually vote for Hillary Clinton, but still can't see it. If some Republicans think Trump is so bad that they'll vote for Clinton, doesn't that say something about the equivalence you keep trying to draw here?

 

No. Hillary is also miles beyond normal (due to unspecified reasons that can't be named), but Democrats "fall in line" anyway. It's only because Republicans are so principled and honorable that they're disavowing Trump.

[Quin]

No. Hillary is also miles beyond normal (due to unspecified reasons that can't be named), but Democrats "fall in line" anyway. It's only because Republicans are so principled and honorable that they're disavowing Trump.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

"Republicans nominate dangerously insane person to lead America, then panic when he proves he’s dangerously insane"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...erously-insane/

[southsider2k5]

It's even more bizarre that you highlight Republicans making the same argument the rest of are, that Trump is so far beyond 'normal' that they can't in good conscience vote for him and will actually vote for Hillary Clinton, but still can't see it. If some Republicans think Trump is so bad that they'll vote for Clinton, doesn't that say something about the equivalence you keep trying to draw here?

 

Um, that people have different points of view? It isn't that difficult. Things like confirmation bias exist for a reason.

[StrangeSox]

Um, that people have different points of view? It isn't that difficult. Things like confirmation bias exist for a reason.

 

Spell out your reasoning of why Clinton and Trump are equivalent. Stop trying to normalize Trump.

Edited August 4, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Spell out your reasoning of why Clinton and Trump are equivalent. Stop trying to normalize Trump.

 

My problem isn't the normalization of Trump. It is the normalization of Clinton. Using Trump as an excuse and/or justification for Clinton isn't something I can accept.

[StrangeSox]

My problem isn't the normalization of Trump. It is the normalization of Clinton. Using Trump as an excuse and/or justification for Clinton isn't something I can accept.

 

Stop normalizing Trump and explain, in detail, why you think they are in any way equivalent.

[southsider2k5]

Stop normalizing Trump and explain, in detail, why you think they are in any way equivalent.

 

lol. Sure. If you aren't even reading two sentences explaining my position, you aren't going to read anything else that you don't want to believe. You can keep carrying Hillary's dirty laundry and excusing her for everything. I sure don't expect to see any change in that.

[StrangeSox]

lol. Sure. If you aren't even reading two sentences explaining my position, you aren't going to read anything else that you don't want to believe. You can keep carrying Hillary's dirty laundry and excusing her for everything. I sure don't expect to see any change in that.

 

You didn't explain your position, though. You threw out some trite phrases. I'm asking you to make an argument to defend those statements, but unsurprisingly, you're refusing and instead trying to deflect it back on me. As if it's my fault you can't explain to me or anyone else who's asked you how you actually support your conclusions.

 

Trump and Clinton are not in any way, shape or form equivalent. You cannot simultaneously point to Republicans making principled stands to publicly declare they're voting for Clinton unlike those dirty Democrats who vote party line all the time* and then also indirectly completely disparage those principles by trying to claim Trump and Clinton are on the same level. Either you don't actually grasp just how awful Trump is in pretty much every way and why he's uniquely unqualified for office, or you have such a burning hatred of Clinton that you can't possibly evaluate her, warts and all, rationally.

 

Clinton hasn't: threatened using nuclear weapons tactically; threatened to ban an entire religion from entering the country; threatened to deport over 10 million people and build a ridiculous wall; promised to start a global trade war; threatened to abandon our allies; implied that nuclear proliferation is a good thing; been totally and deeply clueless about foreign and domestic affairs; promised to simultaneously deeply cut taxes, greatly increase military spending, provide a massive infrastructure spending program and balance the budget; talked about forcing bond holders to take a haircut; said she wanted to beat up protesters or RNC speakers; been completely unable to let any slight, no matter how small, go and ranted for days publicly about them; promised to use our military as a global protection racket; retweeted literal neo-nazis and received the widespread endorsement of white supremacists; attacked the family of a dead soldier because they called out statements on Muslims; expressed a desire to "open up" libel laws to sue anyone who criticizes her; suggested that the sitting President was not born in this country; suggested that, if she loses, the system is obviously rigged; asked a foreign government to directly and openly interfere in our election in his favor (cannot believe I forgot about that one, but that was already a week's worth of insanity ago).

 

And that's just what I can get off of the top of my head. When you attempt to equate something like Hillary's use of an email server for at worst avoidance of FOIA requests (which is a s***ty thing to do!) with that garbage above, with giving a man as unstable and incoherent as Trump the keys to nuclear weapons and the largest military in the history of the world, that's normalizing Trump.

 

 

 

*2000 election? Nope, never heard of it!

Edited August 4, 2016 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

You didn't explain your position, though. You threw out some trite phrases. I'm asking you to make an argument to defend those statements, but unsurprisingly, you're refusing and instead trying to deflect it back on me. As if it's my fault you can't explain to me or anyone else who's asked you how you actually support your conclusions.

 

Trump and Clinton are not in any way, shape or form equivalent. You cannot simultaneously point to Republicans making principled stands to publicly declare they're voting for Clinton unlike those dirty Democrats who vote party line all the time* and then also indirectly completely disparage those principles by trying to claim Trump and Clinton are on the same level. Either you don't actually grasp just how awful Trump is in pretty much every way and why he's uniquely unqualified for office, or you have such a burning hatred of Clinton that you can't possibly evaluate her, warts and all, rationally.

 

Clinton hasn't: threatened using nuclear weapons tactically; threatened to ban an entire religion from entering the country; threatened to deport over 10 million people and build a ridiculous wall; promised to start a global trade war; threatened to abandon our allies; implied that nuclear proliferation is a good thing; been totally and deeply clueless about foreign and domestic affairs; promised to simultaneously deeply cut taxes, greatly increase military spending, provide a massive infrastructure spending program and balance the budget; talked about forcing bond holders to take a haircut; said she wanted to beat up protesters or RNC speakers; been completely unable to let any slight, no matter how small, go and ranted for days publicly about them; promised to use our military as a global protection racket; retweeted literal neo-nazis and received the widespread endorsement of white supremacists; attacked the family of a dead soldier because they called out statements on Muslims; expressed a desire to "open up" libel laws to sue anyone who criticizes her; suggested that the sitting President was not born in this country; suggested that, if she loses, the system is obviously rigged.

 

And that's just what I can get off of the top of my head. When you attempt to equate something like Hillary's use of an email server for at worst avoidance of FOIA requests (which is a s***ty thing to do!) with that garbage above, with giving a man as unstable and incoherent as Trump the keys to nuclear weapons and the largest military in the history of the world, that's normalizing Trump.

 

 

 

*2000 election? Nope, never heard of it!

 

The world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. I can point to Republicans defecting to Clinton based on principles and still not agree with them going to Clinton, instead of doing something else. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I am not buying into the GWB line of thought that if you aren't for one, you have to be for the other one. The world does not exist in a Democratic or Republican version. It is a simplistic yet effective way of the parties trying to keep their troops in line without accepting that THEY might need to be the ones who need to change, instead of the voters accepting radically awful candidates.

 

You can use all of the name-calling in lieu of actual independent thought and logic you want to try to bait me, if you like. I see no need to spend all day playing some silly game with you to somehow attempt justify that Hillary Clinton is a good Presidential candidate.

 

What is the end game here? Do you really think if Hillary's list isn't as long, or as horrific, that somehow justifies her? That is going to somehow change my mind? That I am going to have this zen moment of realization? Please. Either you want see it or you don't. There will be no changing that. Just like arguing with people about how all of these things made Trump an unfit candidate, you will never see the light because you don't want to see it.

[StrangeSox]

That was not name-calling, that was accurately pointing out what you do damn near every time and did again in that very post. You're still not defending your claims that Trump and Clinton are equally bad and equally unqualified to be President, that there are just as good of reasons to jump ship from Hillary as there are to jump ship from Trump. And, again, that's exactly what normalizing Trump looks like--pretending that he isn't completely outside the bounds of what an acceptable Presidential candidate looks like, and that someone like Clinton is in any way comparable. I think W. Bush was an incompetent, terrible leader but I'd take him over Trump in a heartbeat. For someone who likes to rail against talking points/memes, that's all you've been tossing out here--you're blind, you're biased, you won't see it because you don't want to! without any actually argument.

 

The US Presidential system does exist in a two-party world and always will given the structure of first-past-the-post voting and even more so the Electoral College. You need a majority of EV's to be President or the vote goes to the House, so the forces that compel people to choose one of two parties and for those parties to build broad electoral coalitions are essentially overwhelming. Short of reaching the point of the system being irreparably broken and armed insurrection being justified (or being in a non-contested state, thanks again EC!), voting for one of the two parties that actually has a chance of winning is the only really useful way to use your vote.

 

Even then, even if you reject that analysis and reject strategic voting and want to vote 3rd party/abstain, that doesn't require you to continually try to draw equivalencies between the two parties or candidates. You can think that Clinton is awful and refuse to vote for her without performing the gold-medal-winning mental gymnastics required to convince yourself she anywhere near as unqualified as Trump.

 

This is the end game. I'm done responding to you dropping out these turds of a post time after time and never backing anything you say up. Rest assured knowing that I'm done responding to you in the subforum through at least the election.

[southsider2k5]

That was not name-calling, that was accurately pointing out what you do damn near every time and did again in that very post. You're still not defending your claims that Trump and Clinton are equally bad and equally unqualified to be President, that there are just as good of reasons to jump ship from Hillary as there are to jump ship from Trump. And, again, that's exactly what normalizing Trump looks like--pretending that he isn't completely outside the bounds of what an acceptable Presidential candidate looks like, and that someone like Clinton is in any way comparable. I think W. Bush was an incompetent, terrible leader but I'd take him over Trump in a heartbeat. For someone who likes to rail against talking points/memes, that's all you've been tossing out here--you're blind, you're biased, you won't see it because you don't want to! without any actually argument.

 

The US Presidential system does exist in a two-party world and always will given the structure of first-past-the-post voting and even more so the Electoral College. You need a majority of EV's to be President or the vote goes to the House, so the forces that compel people to choose one of two parties and for those parties to build broad electoral coalitions are essentially overwhelming. Short of reaching the point of the system being irreparably broken and armed insurrection being justified (or being in a non-contested state, thanks again EC!), voting for one of the two parties that actually has a chance of winning is the only really useful way to use your vote.

 

Even then, even if you reject that analysis and reject strategic voting and want to vote 3rd party/abstain, that doesn't require you to continually try to draw equivalencies between the two parties or candidates. You can think that Clinton is awful and refuse to vote for her without performing the gold-medal-winning mental gymnastics required to convince yourself she anywhere near as unqualified as Trump.

 

This is the end game. I'm done responding to you dropping out these turds of a post time after time and never backing anything you say up. Rest assured knowing that I'm done responding to you in the subforum through at least the election.

 

This is the dumbest thing you might have ever posted. There is nothing about Trump that has anything to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness for President. Seeing Hillary Clinton as unfit for the office isn't "normalizing Trump". I have no idea what left winger taught you that new catch phrase, but it doesn't even make any sense. It is lazy two party politics as usual, at its finest. You can actually look at two separate things without them somehow depending on each other.

 

As for the actual arguments, you ignored my point about their usefulness in this case. If actually I thought you cared an iota more than using the opportunity to praise and justify Hillary Clinton, I might have actually talked about it. Reading the years of posts you have made here there is no chance of there being an actual honest debate and thought process happening here, which means quite literally it would be a fools errand to do. I have a better chance of convincing the Jesus guy outside of Old Navy on State Street that God isn't real, than I do of having you believe that Hillary Clinton isn't fit for office. So no, I am not going to waste my time to set you up for your talking points so you can win the internet for Hillary.

[greg775]

We should do a poll. I'm thinking 90 to 95 percent of this board would cite itself as a Democrat. Surprises me. I did not know a majority of Sox fans were Democrats. I thought some ingrained South Siders were Republican.

[Texsox]

There are long lists of reasons why both candidates are unfit. Because we are not talking legally unfit, those reasons are truly in the opinion of the person expressing them. I am as big a liberal as some on this board and I'm not dancing a jig heading to the ballot box. I'll toss out one reason why both candidates are wrong for America this decade. The President as a cheer leader for America. We are going to have four more years of a President that many people in America can not stand. Four more years of bitter partisan division. I'm not going to touch morals and ethics.

[greg775]

We are going to have four more years of a President that many people in America can not stand. Four more years of bitter partisan division. I'm not going to touch morals and ethics.

Very very true, Tex. For four years, the Republicans will block her at every turn and in fact try to find ways to get impeachment proceedings going against her.

I thought everybody would get behind Bernie but just cause he used the term "Democratic Socialist" the media buried him and he had no chance. Bernie was likeable at least. But the DNC plotted to weaken him and media wouldn't acknowledge he had unstoppable momentum at one point.

Cruz wasn't likeable. Bush wasn't. Fiorina wasn't. I think Ben Carson was somewhat likeable but the media deemed him a nut and that was that for him.

Edited August 5, 2016 by greg775

[Quin]

Very very true, Tex. For four years, the Republicans will block her at every turn and in fact try to find ways to get impeachment proceedings going against her.

I thought everybody would get behind Bernie but just cause he used the term "Democratic Socialist" the media buried him and he had no chance. Bernie was likeable at least. But the DNC plotted to weaken him and media wouldn't acknowledge he had unstoppable momentum at one point.

Cruz wasn't likeable. Bush wasn't. Fiorina wasn't. I think Ben Carson was somewhat likeable but the media deemed him a nut and that was that for him.

 

Well he helped by saying bat s*** insane things.

[greg775]

Well he helped by saying bat s*** insane things.

He was great on Hannity tonight. A brilliant surgeon is not an incompetent boob/clown and that's how he was portrayed.