|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 06 2017 06:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. do you have a link to a study or somesuch to verify your belief? I ask because personal impressions are often quite inaccurate. at any rate, my personal impression is that sex scandals take down people from both parties quite readily enough.
The topic of sex scandals was only a random example though.
In any case, the point is not that sex scandals negatively affect the careers of individual republicans that embarrass the party, but the hypocrisy among conservatives and their media allies where a scandal for a liberal politician somehow is an indictment of liberal politics and somehow reveals their immorality, yet a similar scandal for a republican (and they actually have way more sexual misconduct than liberals) never affects the party's reputation, and they're all treated as incidents. Furthermore, high profile republicans don't really lose institutional support for getting caught, and the media is complicit in this because they amplify the republican outrage machine.
Of course bad stuff happens on both sides, but for people like Ailes, O'Reilly, Hastert, Trump, they were able to get away with extremely gross, illegal behavior for ages.
|
On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure.
Trump is in the same vein as Gingrich or Giuliani I think, just taken to the extreme. I've always got the sense that the modern GOP never really had a career-ending level problem with Gingrich-style philanderers, just homosexuals and in extreme cases Hastert-type pedophiles.
Most of what sinks cheaters in politics seems to be using campaign funds for mistresses or misusing power a la Edwards anyway (and that's what happened to Cain too iirc). That's more corruption than cheating.
|
On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response.
Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case.
|
Don't drag me into this. I would re-litigate the 2016 election than discuss whatever that garbage is.
|
United States42882 Posts
On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case.
Herman Cain was a kook. My recollection of him was that when he wasn't accidentally reading the Pokemon theme song he was insisting that God told him that 777 was the perfect tax rate through his reading of the scriptures.
I mean hell, maybe that qualifies as a Republican frontrunner these days, but it shouldn't.
|
On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case.
I'm not getting into the sex scandal thing, but that's hilarious. Also reminded me of when people thought Trump was the next Herman Cain.
|
this seems like it will be popular
|
On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case.
Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women.
People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal.
But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts.
|
I'm sure the states will handle it. It will be fine. Remember, the GOPs way now is to make sure that anyone but them is responsible for addressing any issues that don't involve removing brown people from the country.
|
On May 06 2017 07:29 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case. Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women. People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal. But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts.
You've staked out your position quite well. If I wanted someone more rational to describe how conservatives and liberals are treated differently, I'd probably do better to ask your brother. It's just too clear from your narrow view of consideration and lack of standards that your thesis is all that matters. T leading presidential candidate for the party is rocked by scandal to drop precipitously in the polls directly following and is never heard from again. Somehow not a sex scandal ending a career. Somehow gay affairs aren't affairs. But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. Believe the facts you choose to believe; Trump would be proud.
|
Federal prosecutors are looking into whether Fox News Channel and its parent company tried to disguise a $3.15 million payment to a former employee who said she had a 20-year affair with the network’s former chairman, Roger Ailes, according to people involved with the investigation.
Investigators in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York have focused on a payment to Laurie Luhn, a former Fox booker and event planner who left the company in 2011 with the seven-figure severance package. Luhn later claimed that she had engaged in a consensual but a mentally abusive, relationship with Ailes and that several of his lieutenants facilitated the assignations and were aware of his alleged mistreatment of her.
...
The size of the payout is of less concern to the investigation than the manner in which it was accounted for, those people said. Prosecutors are investigating whether Fox News Channel and its parent company, 21st Century Fox, improperly accounted for the payments to Luhn and other ex-employees to minimize their impact on Fox’s books.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On May 06 2017 07:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 07:29 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case. Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women. People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal. But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts. You've staked out your position quite well. If I wanted someone more rational to describe how conservatives and liberals are treated differently, I'd probably do better to ask your brother. It's just too clear from your narrow view of consideration and lack of standards that your thesis is all that matters. T leading presidential candidate for the party is rocked by scandal to drop precipitously in the polls directly following and is never heard from again. Somehow not a sex scandal ending a career. Somehow gay affairs aren't affairs. But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. Believe the facts you choose to believe; Trump would be proud.
Do you seriously think that Cain disappeared because of a sex scandal? Or that he had a realistic change of winning the primary? (lol) He disappeared because he was an embarrassment to the party, because he couldn't be controlled and on top of that was involved in a scandal. They probably tried to do the same thing with Trump but he had too much momentum.
But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. GOP = evil, Dems = useless, are good shorthands to live by. Maybe it's unfair, but it saves me a lot of thinking.
|
On May 06 2017 08:05 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 07:40 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 07:29 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case. Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women. People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal. But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts. You've staked out your position quite well. If I wanted someone more rational to describe how conservatives and liberals are treated differently, I'd probably do better to ask your brother. It's just too clear from your narrow view of consideration and lack of standards that your thesis is all that matters. T leading presidential candidate for the party is rocked by scandal to drop precipitously in the polls directly following and is never heard from again. Somehow not a sex scandal ending a career. Somehow gay affairs aren't affairs. But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. Believe the facts you choose to believe; Trump would be proud. Do you seriously think that Cain disappeared because of a sex scandal? Or that he had a realistic change of winning the primary? (lol) He disappeared because he was an embarrassment to the party, because he couldn't be controlled and on top of that was involved in a scandal. They probably tried to do the same thing with Trump but he had too much momentum.
I don't understand where what you think the line is between what the GOP doing the right thing is and doing the wrong thing is. He disapeared beacuse he was involved in a scandal and the party didn't even try to save him beacuse he wasn't a party kind of person? They tried to do the same to trump beacuse he wasn't apart of the mainstream party but he had too much momentum? both of these things make sense are logical and are good things for the party to do.
I don't see how sex scandals are handled differently by who is involved with them. Both parties make rational decisions on when to bail on someone.
Edit: I saw your edit after your post and it cleared things up for me. You don't actually care about making any progress you just want to complain about the situation.
|
It looks to me like this new health care bill is mostly another fake repeal. It does get rid of the special tax on medical devices and the individual mandate. Everything else is, "We know you elected us to repeal this, but we're going to make the states do the actual repealing. But we don't trust the states enough to let them opt out of a few of the bill's worst features. Also, let's throw in some unfair Medicaid changes while we can."
|
On May 06 2017 08:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 08:05 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:40 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 07:29 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves.
I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case. Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women. People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal. But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts. You've staked out your position quite well. If I wanted someone more rational to describe how conservatives and liberals are treated differently, I'd probably do better to ask your brother. It's just too clear from your narrow view of consideration and lack of standards that your thesis is all that matters. T leading presidential candidate for the party is rocked by scandal to drop precipitously in the polls directly following and is never heard from again. Somehow not a sex scandal ending a career. Somehow gay affairs aren't affairs. But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. Believe the facts you choose to believe; Trump would be proud. Do you seriously think that Cain disappeared because of a sex scandal? Or that he had a realistic change of winning the primary? (lol) He disappeared because he was an embarrassment to the party, because he couldn't be controlled and on top of that was involved in a scandal. They probably tried to do the same thing with Trump but he had too much momentum. I don't understand where what you think the line is between what the GOP doing the right thing is and doing the wrong thing is. He disapeared beacuse he was involved in a scandal and the party didn't even try to save him beacuse he wasn't a party kind of person? They tried to do the same to trump beacuse he wasn't apart of the mainstream party but he had too much momentum? both of these things make sense are logical and are good things for the party to do. I don't see how sex scandals are handled differently by who is involved with them. Both parties make rational decisions on when to bail on someone. Edit: I saw your edit after your post and it cleared things up for me. You don't actually care about making any progress you just want to complain about the situation.
This whole discussion is because I wanted to mention that there are different standards for conservatives than for liberals. Which is true. Then I mentioned sex scandals as an offhand example, because my impression from following politics is that republicans constantly have them but it doesn't affect the party very seriously and doesn't stop them or the media from presenting themselves as the party of morality. And often it doesn't affect the politicians either (think of Gingrich and his several wives). Then Danglars kept coming up with examples of GOP figures who had to step down after a scandal as if those are counter examples for my thesis. Go blame Danglars.
And you can complain about my edit, but whatever. I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the GOP is on all controversial matters on the wrong side of history. You can wonder how tactically useful it is to dogmatically oppose them, but I think morally speaking the only possible answer is that they should be stopped.
|
On May 06 2017 08:26 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the GOP is on all controversial matters on the wrong side of history.
I will contest it on purely logical grounds. The mere fact that the matters are controversial means we don't know which side history will take.
|
On May 06 2017 08:28 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 08:26 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the GOP is on all controversial matters on the wrong side of history. I will contest it on purely logical grounds. The mere fact that the matters are controversial means we don't know which side history will take.
I will contest it on a failure to limit the scope of the claim. They are the party that was created to oppose slavery, after all.
Now, if we want to talk about Republicans of the last 16 years, I think he has a stronger argument.
|
Yes, since the radicalization of the GOP that happened during the Bush years and accelerated under Obama. They have been supported destructive wars, failed to do anything about climate change, opposed lbgt rights, opposed health care reform, opposed reform of the financial industry, supported Trump, support the war on drugs. And a million other issues of importance.
|
On May 06 2017 08:26 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 08:13 Sermokala wrote:On May 06 2017 08:05 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:40 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 07:29 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response. Wow. We're really plumbing the depths with you. Herman Cain was a frontrunner, but for the purpose of your thesis you want to call him fringe. Gay sex scandals aren't really sex scandals because homophobia is somehow your deciding factor in a sex scandal. I'm a little blown away, and Plansix and Biff have been doing their utmost to cause nothing to surprise me anymore. I can't even begin to unravel these absurd justifications. So when you don't cherry pick your sex scandals and dismiss inconvenient counterexamples, I'll think you're interested in laying a basis for your case. Ben Carson and Trump were frontrunners too, but in many ways they are fringe. Which disturbed weirdo captures the attention of the republican base is pretty random, it is usually not meaningful but Trump is an exception. And the GOP was perfectly willing to throw Trump under the bus when the Billy Bush tape came out, you had the spectacle of a bunch of people who all have their own private scandals and all have antediluvian attitudes speak concernedly about the importance of respecting women. People in power are always willing to bend the rules when it personally benefits them. Because most of the GOP consists of white men with patriarchal beliefs, they will exploit their power to gain access to attractive young women. Because homophobia is an important element of their platform and they don't personally benefit from a compassionate attitude towards gay people, they will immediately abandon anyone caught in some sort of gay scandal. But the situations are just not symmetrical. Liberal sex scandals are treated much differently by the GOP than vice versa. The GOP has an endless ability to be hypocritical, they will be utterly dedicated and convincing in attacking people for certain behavior and then immediately engage in the exact same acts. You've staked out your position quite well. If I wanted someone more rational to describe how conservatives and liberals are treated differently, I'd probably do better to ask your brother. It's just too clear from your narrow view of consideration and lack of standards that your thesis is all that matters. T leading presidential candidate for the party is rocked by scandal to drop precipitously in the polls directly following and is never heard from again. Somehow not a sex scandal ending a career. Somehow gay affairs aren't affairs. But I have no intention to waste my breath with maybe the least able person in this thread to give a fair hearing to countervailing points. Believe the facts you choose to believe; Trump would be proud. Do you seriously think that Cain disappeared because of a sex scandal? Or that he had a realistic change of winning the primary? (lol) He disappeared because he was an embarrassment to the party, because he couldn't be controlled and on top of that was involved in a scandal. They probably tried to do the same thing with Trump but he had too much momentum. I don't understand where what you think the line is between what the GOP doing the right thing is and doing the wrong thing is. He disapeared beacuse he was involved in a scandal and the party didn't even try to save him beacuse he wasn't a party kind of person? They tried to do the same to trump beacuse he wasn't apart of the mainstream party but he had too much momentum? both of these things make sense are logical and are good things for the party to do. I don't see how sex scandals are handled differently by who is involved with them. Both parties make rational decisions on when to bail on someone. Edit: I saw your edit after your post and it cleared things up for me. You don't actually care about making any progress you just want to complain about the situation. This whole discussion is because I wanted to mention that there are different standards for conservatives than for liberals. Which is true. Then I mentioned sex scandals as an offhand example, because my impression from following politics is that republicans constantly have them but it doesn't affect the party very seriously and doesn't stop them or the media from presenting themselves as the party of morality. And often it doesn't affect the politicians either (think of Gingrich and his several wives). Then Danglars kept coming up with examples of GOP figures who had to step down after a scandal as if those are counter examples for my thesis. Go blame Danglars. And you can complain about my edit, but whatever. I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the GOP is on all controversial matters on the wrong side of history. You can wonder how tactically useful it is to dogmatically oppose them, but I think morally speaking the only possible answer is that they should be stopped.
But thats a bad joke. There isn't different standards for different parties everyone treats sex scandals as a near career ending event. Danglers came and confronted you and brought examples why you were wrong and then you got confused why that mattered. You think that the GOP is somehow worse then anything else humanity has done in all history and you are confused why people don't agree with your biased impressions based on that?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding how things work. Conservatives are suppose to be the opposition to progress and to test it to make sure its not eugenics. If progress can't defend itself as necessary then whats the point of it? They're suppose to be on the "wrong side of history" (not even going to approach that dumpster fire of a term) because thats their purpose to benefit society as a whole. Because hey things are better now then they've ever been full stop so lets not fuck that up?
Dogmatically opposing anything is morally wrong. The catholic church should be example enough for you. My great-grandparents left your country because they would have been killed otherwise by people who dogmatically opposed them thinking they were morally right. We were suppose to learn from those mistakes to make a better society.
|
On May 06 2017 08:28 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 08:26 Grumbels wrote:
I don't think anyone can contest the fact that the GOP is on all controversial matters on the wrong side of history. I will contest it on purely logical grounds. The mere fact that the matters are controversial means we don't know which side history will take.
We do know what side history will take on climate change, on the iraq war, on lgbt discrimination, on gender equality, on the drug war, on health care reform. Unless you want to make this about semantics and the subjectivity of writing history. The GOP is overwhelmingly, and dangerously, wrong on almost every issue of importance, as determined by expert consensus or empirical fact. You don't need to be an oracle to know that sabotaging health insurance is going to have catastrophic effects for millions of people, or that climate change will negatively affect the lives of more and more people every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
