I think we all need to take a breath and stop wasting time pointing out hypocrisy in our politicians. Being a hypocrite is a qualification for politics isn't it? If you want an honest politician I think you will always be disappointed if you look closely enough.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

That ship has long sailed away. Even left you an opening there.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Don't forget that Corey Stewart won last night and received a tweet from our President supporting him.

I'm not sure where some members of the party that was formerly known as the Republican party and is now Trump's Party go.

Surely, there must be a place in our political system that is not inhabited by the extremes of the right (or left) and values fiscal conservatism.

---

Suffer Well.

A) Not sure how it's "Trumps government" when he won a primary for the Nevada statehouse.
B) He's the successful owner of a legal business. What's the issue?

---

I miss YaHey

okay

I love these kinds of comments:

"I've never given even the tiniest rat's ass about the Republicans' family values campaigns, and have always carped on the party for even mentioning the topic. But now I'm outraged -- outraged I tell you! -- that the issue is beginning to ebb within the party. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves!"

I'm always thinking... "So wait, you're pissed that the Republicans are moving towards your position on these issues?"

If you believe Republicans convinced people to vote against their own economic interests because of shared "family values," pointing out the hypocrisy would be a worthwhile endeavor, no?

Not if it makes you look stupid.

we got pimps winning in the GOP.. watcha talking about

I think we have a strawman alert here...

I don't think people have complained that the Republicans have touted "family values." I think people have complained that Republicans have insisted they are the owners of family values, and that they alone get to define family values, and that family values are more important than other issues and other values.

So I think it's fair to point out how readily some Republicans will drop all interest in family values when "their guy" has no interest in them.

But if you want to make your argument that people are upset that Republicans have family values, and now they're upset that they don't - um, sure. You can be upset with whoever those four people are.

I think you're getting into a meaningless distinction here. When liberals tout feminist values do they insist they are the "owners" of that issue? Of course. This point isn't relevant.


Talk about your strawmen. Voted for the guy anyway even though his personal lifestyle happened to go outside the bounds of a preferred family values domain doesn't equal "drop all interest in family values".



That's not my argument. My argument is that some people are upset that Republicans aren't using family values as a litmus test even though they themselves are against using family values as a litmus test.

You are missing the point completely. It isn't about the position itself, it's about the utter hypocrisy of a party spending years spouting "family values" and then when it is politically convenient to ignore it they do. Or like that clip going around with Fox News talking heads going on about how Obama being willing to talk to Kim was borderline traitorous and then praising Trump for doing just exactly that.

When I can see that I can only conclude that either the person who spouts the two opposing viewpoints when they are convenient is stupid, or that the people who follow along and agree are stupid. Or maybe both.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

This was inevitable when the Republicans decided on their Southern Strategy of courting the white trash vote.

I always said when those folks realized the conservatives wanted to take away their beer, welfare and porn they'd wake up, but I was wrong. They took over the party instead.

Many of the religious right are using family values as a litmus test, as long as it's not their guy. Just look at Pence.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Funny enough, I was watching reruns of West Wing this past weekend, and there was an episode in which one of the Republican Congressmen was bemoaning this same issue. 20 years ago, the issue of where the traditional small government fiscal conservative was supposed to align himself among the dueling parties was a concern. It seems worse now, but it's not a new problem.

By the way, that show had a lot of stuff that's applicable to today. In the series of episodes where President Bartlett is being investigated, there is a whole episode about how it's pretty tough to try to sell that you have any issues with a respected conservative Special Prosecutor, especially because he was chosen by the President's own AG. Sounds familiar.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not sure what Dennis Hof has to do with "Trumps government". Seems like it's more of an indication what type of voter we have in Nevada. Do you also consider part of "Trumps government" the newly elected Athens, GA commissioner who refused to put her hand on the Bible during her swearing in and instead raised her fist while putting her other hand on a book of Malcom X?

"Trumps government" has quietly reversed many "family value" rulings of the Obama administration one of which included allowing 16 year old high school boys to use girls locker rooms and showers in public schools if they walked in one day and claimed they now "identify" as a female.....as well as appointing a Supreme Court Justice whose "family values" history is above reproach.

I would really hate to see what kind of "family values" we would be seeing if the other candidate won and continued the policies we were subjected to for the eight years prior to Trump.

Yes, there are those on the right that still would like to use a litmus test. It's just when they are overruled it makes those that don't like family values litmus tests on the left very angry.

You're a pretty good spin doctor but totally evades the point of my original post.

Legal in only one state. Would you want a pimp as your rep where you live. Maybe you should ask your wife.

You are the one missing the point completely. How do I know? Because I'm the one that made the point, and I can see you've missed it.

I'll translate this to an analogous example because I feel like your tribalism is closing you down to what I'm saying.

We all remember when Hillary and her team (M. Albright in particular) expressed during the 2016 election that "there's a special place in hell for women that don't help each other". The context of that comment was that women should vote for Hillary because she was a woman. Well, fast forward to these current Democratic primaries and Hillary and her followers are supporting many, many white men over their female rivals in the Dem primaries.

Now, obviously I prefer that candidates are judged on their positions, talents, and competence and not on their sexual organs. I guess I could point out that those people supporting these two opposing viewpoints when they are convenient are stupid, or that the people who follow along and agree are stupid. Or maybe both. I guess I could also point out how the "special place in hell" position is looking to manipulate women into voting for someone based solely on their sexual organs, and not their true political interests -- so the hypocrisy makes me mad.

However, there are a few important ways in which that approach is not good. First, I'd be insulting the intelligence of a group of people that I'd like to influence. That's not especially smart. Secondly, the group -- even though hypocritical -- has moved to a position that I agree with. If I stress the hypocrisy angle there might be people on the left that seek to stop being hypocritical by going back to trying to make "being a woman" an important qualification for receiving a vote from another woman. That would be a move in the wrong direction -- at least in my opinion.

Therefore, the way I (typically) handle this type of situation is to say: "Yes! Thank you Hillary Democrats for recently supporting many men over their female rivals! The "special place in hell for women that don't help each other" campaign appeal needs to be a thing of the past".

pardon my hijack, but i'm not sure nevada has it all entirely wrong (regardless of its motives). our society includes a class of people who's emotional capacity for intimacy is extremely limited. who are social pariahs, esp as regards sexual intimacy. how would it be to live with no chance at intimacy? no prognosis for it? of course there's the other side, which is the human toll on sex workers. it's a complicated issue. i don't know that prostitution is as cut and dried as i thought it was when i was younger. /hijack

but to your point, you're stating the obvious. when you look back and see that the party that made it a point, election after election, of standing for social mores, the defense of the family, fiscal responsibility, national defense, free trade (and that beat the other side up on these points) has coalesced behind trump, you now see that none of that stuff was the real reason that many or most republicans voted republican. but, when you try to have an honest discussion as to what those real reasons might be, you (well, i) get the righteous outrage treatment. i have not found that this is a conversation that's possible to have here.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Ah, so you think people are upset because the GOP isn't using family values as a litmus test.

I doubt many people on the left are actually upset about that.

I think you'll find what people on the left are loudly calling attention to is the blatant hypocrisy dropping the litmus test reveals.

Why don't you give us the "real reason"? You're dying to say something. Just do it.

So you'd be fine with picking the litmus test back up and ceasing the hypocrisy?

Maybe I am nitpicking and probably not what you meant but sex isn't always intimate. In a Nevada brothel definitely not so.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

i don't think there's a single reason (i just know, very obviously, that they're not the reasons stated over the years). and, i'd be making educated guesses. i'd be interested in the responses i'd get from those who beg to differ. but what i am beyond certain of, and am regretful of, is that i can't have a fact-based, history-based, evidence-based conversation with you on this.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

No, I'd rather they admit it was only a rallying cry and not a true litmus test at all. The hypocrisy is a fait accompli regardless of what the right does now.

I think one of the reasons for pointing out the hypocrisy is because in 2024 there will be a Democratic nominee who will have had an extra-marital affair, and the GOP will clutch its pearls with both hands and decry it as an example of how the left is eroding the family values of the nation. Many won't buy the reversal, but many will. Pointing out the hypocrisy now may make it a little harder for some people to swallow it then.

What you just wrote is complete nonsense. In a single bound you equated Brothel owners to feminists. Good news women! The long history of the oppression of Brothel owners is justly coming to an end! This is a win for all the oppressed! Minorities, women, and gays! And let it not be said that Brothel owners had a choice! They were born into the life trafficking in sex!

I think you're missing the point of the analogy. I'm just using two examples of hypocrisy for development of that concept. I'm not comparing and contrasting brothel owners and feminists.

If a group truly believes something that I don't agree with, then that's fine we all have our opinions. I might oppose that opinion and that's my right also. Basically we agree to disagree. I have a lot less problem with the "litmus test" than with conveniently switching positions on some formerly all important position.

Neither side is innocent of this, but in this age of Trump as president the hypocrisy of some members of the republican party and commentator class is particularly stunning.

Here is an example: https://twitter.com/.../1006701349910675457

Side question for those on the right, do you have similar examples of say Maddow, or other democratic politicians?

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

swimwithstones wrote:

The hypocrisy is a fait accompli regardless of what the right does now.

Let me put it another way then...

1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots
2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits.

That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences.



I honestly don't see much pearl clutching anymore, no. Maybe a small minority will have never stopped clutching, but that minority is getting smaller all the time. Really, the only way the right could wing a huge indignation over infidelity anymore is if there was some strange added element to the extra-marital affair -- like swinging or pedaphelia or something weird. (Super important disclaimer: I'm not equating either of those three options morally. I'm just saying all three are outside what's been clearly made mainstream.)


That being said, at some level, even Democrats and Republicans (not driven by typical family values issues) will still use extra-marital affairs against a candidate that has had them.

I don't deserve this. You may not agree with me, but all my conversations are fact, history, and evidence based.

Edit: And I rarely go ad hominem even in the face of insults like these (and others much nastier).

i don't see, in this thread, that you have much of an interest in seeing what others have to say. and, based on your reply to me that elicited my reply (that you didn't like) it seemed like you were simply spoiling for a fight. i don't really want to engage with someone who just wants to yell through his keyboard.

that said, i doubt you and i disagree on too many things. if republicanism, today, was built on a national defense foundation that fulfilled our strategic goals (defending ourselves and our allies; fighting two simultaneous wars, etc.); was built on fiscal conservatism, low debt, consideration for future generations; was science-based in its planning and execution; was built on the preeminent value of individual self-determination; was designed around the smallest possible govt while fulfilling the promise that only a federal govt can provide; that honored our natl institutions, law and order, historic processes; that was appropriately reticent to change social structures quickly; that appropriately protected our borders; that resisted foreign entanglements; i'd be a republican.

today, tho, it seems to me, as an outsider looking in (because i'm not a republican), that corey stewart won the ideologican fight and bob corker lost. all the republicans i admire (corker, charlie dent, flake and mccain, scarborough) are leaving. trump and his acolytes remain. i would like to ask bob corker wheter all this time the narrative of republicans was simply fraudulent. i don't know. i believe in a lot of what corker believes in. just, that party is dead. was it ever actually alive? in the minds of voters? or was it only alive in the minds of buckley, hitchens and george will?

if you don't want me to tell you what the evidence suggests, as to what republicanism is, fine, then you tell me.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Hmm. I'll have to work on how I sound.

I don't think their position has evolved at all. I don't even think it was really a position. I think it was a rallying cry. And it's an important point to make that the left's position is not "anti-family values" by any stretch. I personally think a person who pays porn stars for sex while his wife is pregnant is a dirtbag, regardless of political leanings.

To answer your two points specifically:

1) I think many of the GOP's points are not in the best interests of the country. So I disagree with them.

2) If they change their position on anything to the opposite of what they've always espoused them to be just because their current hero falls dramatically short, then yes, they are being hypocritical and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out, regardless of party.

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're driving at. Nobody cares if the GOP agrees with the Dems on family values - the two parties agree on lots of things. People care about the hypocrisy.

This is just going round and round. I explain my point -- which is about a certain type of response to a certain kind of hypocrisy. You want to get back to "nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy". I tried to explain how your position does fall short under certain conditions -- maybe better elaborated in replies to others -- but either you just don't get it or you absolutely disagree. Actually, I guess, it's somehow both.

SH wrote:

This is just going round and round. I explain my point -- which is about a certain type of response to a certain kind of hypocrisy. You want to get back to "nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy". I tried to explain how your position does fall short under certain conditions -- maybe better elaborated in replies to others -- but either you just don't get it or you absolutely disagree. Actually, I guess, it's somehow both.

Okay, let's just be simplistic and clear, then. No hyperbole - just trying to understand each other.

You said:

"1.) If they hold their old position then they are idiots"
Me ==> Sure

"2.) If they move towards your position then they are hypocrits."
Me ==> Yes

"That's a nice little game to play. But when you complain like you are, it sounds like you're more upset about getting your butt kicked in elections because the right didn't keep to its old position than you are about the evolution of the position towards your preferences."

When you complain like you are - What exactly do you think I'm complaining about?

Are you saying you think lefties are upset because the GOP moved to the left to win an election, and so basically the lefties are whining because they were outmaneuvered?

Are you also saying you think lefties should not be upset because the GOP moved leftward, and so any complaints by lefties are complaints about their team losing rather than about issues?

Am I encapsulating your argument correctly?

Just a small point of order... I don't think anyone is alleging Trump paid to have sex with Miss Daniels (though he allegedly offered the other girl money and she declined).

Ok...back to your regular programming ...

In this thread I'm making a point. When it seems like people understand it, I'll move on. Granted, it's not a point people are used to hearing, so I'm patient. I'm not "yelling" or "outraged".

This is the opposite of our exchange. I wanted you to cleary write it down rather than dog whistle it.

But you know what? I don't want to force your hand on something like this. I think if you're hesitant, it's because you know what's best. So this is my last post on this thread -- no matter what.

the abject dismantling of govt, all govt, any govt, regardless of purpose. deregulation is now a big part of what the party stands for. deregulation to the point where anything else the party used to stand for is brushed aside. we deregulated banks (along with a little help from bill clinton) and it helped get us a financial meltdown that rivaled the great depression. and now we're doing it again. we're deregulating air and water, reversing not obama, but nixon. we're on a path to dismantle public lands. teddy roosevelt, another republican icon, would roll over in his grave over what's now the trumpian posture toward both the protection of public lands and the protection against the greed and power of the corporatists.

but you expected me to say racism. sorry to disappoint you. happy to have that discussion as well. but i don't think you want that discussion. you want that fight. but not that discussion.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman