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.