Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Why are republicans/conservatives so hypocritical when it comes to this?

Why are republicans/conservatives so hypocritical when it comes to this?

+2
EmeraldGhost
Hospital Bob
6 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night. O'Reilly interviewed Chris Christie.

During the interview, both O'Reilly (which is expected) AND Christie (which was not so expected), were complaining because Obama doesn't enforce the federal drug laws in Colorado.
In other words, they are in favor of the federal government coming into Colorado and in effect rescinding the Colorado law, and replacing it with the federal law.

Huh?

This is the same republican/conservative ilk WHO ALWAYS says the federal government should have LESS power and authority and control in our lives, AND the state governments should have MORE power and authority in our lives.

What gives here? Markle? Pacedog? Anybody?

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Bob wrote: ....

What gives here?  Markle?  Pacedog?  Anybody?

The pharmaceutical, alcohol, & the church industries.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Bob wrote: ....

What gives here?  Markle?  Pacedog?  Anybody?

The pharmaceutical, alcohol, & the church industries.

Well I understand all those play a role in it.  

But why do these republicans/conservatives never try to defend their hypocrisy?  
They're all for "state's rights".  Except when they don't like what a state does and then they're all for the federal government TAKING AWAY the "states rights".
It's the very height of hypocrisy. And it makes their whole "state's rights" argument become nothing but a bunch of fucking bullshit.

gatorfan



Actually what is hypocritical is the Federal Government selectively choosing what federal laws they will enforce based on which way the political winds are blowing. If they aren't going to enforce federal immigration or drug laws then remove the laws from the books and let individual states handle their own issues (like they should).

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

gatorfan wrote:Actually what is hypocritical is the Federal Government selectively choosing what federal laws they will enforce based on which way the political winds are blowing. If they aren't going to enforce federal immigration or drug laws then remove the laws from the books and let individual states handle their own issues (like they should).


That's a very good point. And of course it's democrats in the federal government who are doing that.

SO, what have we learned from this? It's that BOTH democrats AND republicans leave a lot to be desired. And it helps us understand why so many Americans want an alternative to democrats and republicans both. And that's why Sanders and Trump are so popular. It's because Sanders and Trump are really not democrats or republicans either one. One is a DINO and one is a RINO. And to many Americans, RINO's and DINO's are now preferable to donkeys and elephants.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

"You're either a liberal (democrat) or a conservative (republican) if you have an IQ higher than a toaster"


Why are republicans/conservatives so hypocritical when it comes to this? 160213_5_

FUCK YOU,  BITCH

Why are republicans/conservatives so hypocritical when it comes to this? Selfie-Toaster-3

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:

That's a very good point.  And of course it's democrats in the federal government who are doing that.

SO,  what have we learned from this?  It's that BOTH democrats AND republicans leave a lot to be desired.   And it helps us understand why so many Americans want an alternative to democrats and republicans both.  And that's why Sanders and Trump are so popular.  It's because Sanders and Trump are really not democrats or republicans either one. One is a DINO and one is a RINO.  And to many Americans,  RINO's and DINO's are now preferable to donkeys and elephants.  

They're both anti-establishment, but they're appealing to people for very different reasons.

Trump is a loud, offensive, vulgarian, and 25-30% of Republican voters have been shown to be angry, misogynistic, bigots to whom that sort of thing appeals.

Bernie is advancing a populist economic agenda designed to level income inequality and strengthen the middle class which resonates with people with functioning brain cells.

And, RINO (Republican in name only) is a pejorative term specifically meant for Republicans who aren't conservative enough.

I don't think that applies to Trump.

I don't hear the term DINO as often, but I would guess that would refer to Democrats who aren't liberal enough.

That's certainly not Bernie.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Bob wrote:
But why do these republicans/conservatives never try to defend their hypocrisy?  

Because there's an unspoken agreement with the media to not make them.

Ask the wrong (embarrassing) questions enough times and a reporter will quickly find themselves blacklisted from press pools & conferences.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

No, Sal,  DINO is not an acronym for "democrats who aren't liberal enough".
Those would be DWALE's.  

Obviously DINO stands for "democrat in name only".  And of course that's what Bernie Sanders is.  If he didn't have to cowtow to a political party to run for President,  he would be a "socialist",  not a democrat.
No different than Trump.  He's forced to join up with the other political party to have any chance of getting elected (if he really wants to get elected).  

And yes I know,  for you the bottom line on it all is that Bernie Sanders is god and Donald Trump is satan.  Same as your opinion that the word democrat equals god and the word republican equals satan.
Exactly the reverse of what Merkle and Pacedog believe.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

EmeraldGhost wrote:
Bob wrote:
But why do these republicans/conservatives never try to defend their hypocrisy?  

Because there's an unspoken agreement with the media to not make them.

Ask the wrong (embarrassing) questions enough times and a reporter will quickly find themselves blacklisted from press pools & conferences.

Well there's probably a lot of truth to that, but it doesn't explain the republicans/conservatives on this forum not answering my question.
I don't have an unspoken agreement with anybody about anything.
And the only one who could "blacklist" me is the forum moderator. And while he may want to blacklist me for other posts, I doubt this will be one of them. lol

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:No, Sal,  DINO is not an acronym for "democrats who aren't liberal enough".
Those would be DWALE's.  

Obviously DINO stands for "democrat in name only".  And of course that's what Bernie Sanders is.  

Well, I had to guess, because apparently "DINO" is not a common term.

And RINO, despite the words which make up the acronym, refers specifically to Republicans who aren't conservative enough.

Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a pejorative term used by conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States to describe Republicans whose political views or actions they consider insufficiently conservative. The acronym RINO emerged in the 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

I don't think that's Trump.

Maybe, we just need some new terms.

How about "VULGARIAN" and "OLD SCHOOL DEMOCRAT"?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:
Well, I had to guess, because apparently "DINO" is not a common term.

Isn't that special.  We're now so locked into the jargon dreamed up by either republicans or democrats,  that it's not even permissible for anyone outside that shit to create the word DINO.

And since the word RINO is already in the language,  only someone who has been totally brainwashed like you would have to guess at what DINO means.
Jesus, when the smart ones like Sal can be so brainwashed, I shudder to think what the less intelligent republicans and democrats must be like.  lol

Sal

Sal

Oops ...

... never mind ...

... it turns out you're just demonstrably wrong ...

Democrat In Name Only or DINO in acronym form, a disparaging term for a member of the modern-day United States Democratic Party whose words and actions are thought to be too fiscally or socially conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only

I don't think that's Bernie.

I guess "VULGARIAN" and "OLD SCHOOL DEMOCRAT" it is!

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:Oops ...

... never mind ...

... it turns out you're just demonstrably wrong ...

Democrat In Name Only or DINO in acronym form, a disparaging term for a member of the modern-day United States Democratic Party whose words and actions are thought to be too fiscally or socially conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_In_Name_Only

I don't think that's Bernie.

No that's not Bernie.
However, the term "democrat in name only" does indeed apply to Bernie.
Because an avowed socialist, by definition, would believe democrats are "too fiscally and socially conservative". That's the reason he refers to himself as a "socialist". If he didn't believe that he would only call himself a democrat, and not a socialist.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

You see,  Sal,  if the democrat and republican parties did not have a stranglehold on American politics,  and if it was even possible for someone not aligned with one or the other of those two political parties to be elected President;  if not for that,  Bernie Sanders would be a member of THIS political party,  not the Democrat Party...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

THAT is what makes him a "democrat in name only".

Sal

Sal

So, what we've determined so far, other than the fact that you don't use political terms correctly, is that the only thing the two candidates share in common is that they are both anti-establishment.

If the only thing you find appealing about them is their anti-establishmentism, why aren't you high on Bernie, Bob?

On one hand, you have a rich, vulgar, reality TV star who has left a long line of failed business ventures and other tawdry affairs in his wake.

Now, I know that you would point to Ronald Reagan's presidency in response to criticism of Trump's lousy record of achievements, but if you're willing to take a look at the result of 35 years of experimenting with trickle down economics, which was initiated by Saint Ronnie, you have to acknowledge that it's been a dismal failure for the middle class in America.

And, the only policy initiative that the rich vulgarian has outlined in any detail would immediately kneecap the U.S. economy on multiple levels.

On the other hand, you have a principled democratic socialist who has been consistently fighting to level the playing field and strengthen the middle class for decades.

Don't you think that's it's high time that we try a different economic model - one that will free some of the money from the hands of the greedy corporatists and put it back into the hands of the middle class who will spend it.

That's really the only way to get our economy growing at a rate that will enable us to address our structural debt problem.

And, he has laid out specific and detailed policy prescriptions on a multitude of other issues, which you can easily peruse at your leisure.

Maybe, your motivations are not entirely what you claim them to be?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

It's not so much that I like Sanders or Trump either one per se.

What I like is that BOTH of them are outside of what I don't like.  And until this election campaign,  I thought I was in a very small minority.
It's the reaction to the candidacy of EACH of them which is showing me I am no longer in a very small minority on that and that's very good news to me.

As for Trump and Sanders themselves?

The only thing I really like about Trump is his style.  And the reaction to his style.  It is so different from the endless parade of "stiffs" (his word and it fits) who seek elected office.   I like his disdain for "political correctness".  
I REALLY like that he's not beholdin to the usual suspects who foot the bill for political campaigns to get something in return.  
And probably most of all,  I REALLY REALLY like that he's a republican who stood up to Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

But after he's now told us specifically what his immigration plan is,  he's lost me.  
It was his claim that he's going to deport 11 million people, many of whom were born inside the United States,  that did it. That is such bullshit.

What I like about Sanders is his character and his integrity.  With Sanders what you see is what you get.  There's none of that bullshit we see from the "stiffs".

But I would never want him for a President because all he would do is pile on more welfare to the welfare state we have now.

So it's the style I like with both but not so much the substance.

2seaoat



Donald Trump represents everything which is wrong with America....superficiality, greed, avarice, corruption, tax avoidance, moral bankruptcy, racism, and a lack of intelligence.   Style.....if crass is a style you find attractive, to each there own.  Supporting Donald Trump is a moral choice.  Americans are good and have a sense of fair play.  Donald Trump will NEVER be President.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote: Donald Trump will NEVER be President.

Neither will Sanders.

Besides,  even if Sanders was the President,  aside from whatever his role would be as CIC,  he would be TOTALLY ineffective dealing with a Republican Congress.  And I see no indication that the Congress is going to change to Democrat.  
Sanders would be limited to governing by Executive Order.  And I guarantee you that won't go over any better than it does with Obama.
And then we'd go back to the same malaise the federal government is in now.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

However,  none of this has to do with the thread topic.
And I see no republican/conservative here has the courage to even try to defend the hypocrisy I referred to.

2seaoat



The Democratic Party will win the Senate in 2016.  They will gain seats in the house but it will not be until 2020 that they have a chance on the house.  Whoever is President will deal with a Democratic senate.  Republican swing state Senators like Kirk from Illinois is going to have a hard time winning if there is good turnout.  They will have a four to five seat majority.  They will pick up as many as thirty house seats, but not control.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:The Democratic Party will win the Senate in 2016. 

Is your prediction based solely on wishful thinking? Or what is it based on?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

This time I have to concede your point. I was ignorant of this.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/senate-elections-2016-115674.html#.VdV_fJdoyyw

Guest


Guest

Back to the original post and thought process... Wouldn't you agree that in the last 30 years most politicians, followers of politicians and radio talk show hosts, pigeon hole themselves to the point that if they stray one inch they are considered hypocritical? They give thought to events that have not happened and stand firm in their conviction about said event that has not happened or personally experienced.

Happens all the time in life. When I was 20 years old and not a parent I said a lot of things about how I would raise a child based on the things I thought I inherently knew. Got in the middle of raising kids and what?? I guess many would view me hypocritical. Had to change a few things I'd adamantly said I/they would not do.

What is comes down to is conflict resolution. We do not know how to constructively argue. It's apparent on this forum most days. No substance to an argument or just simply being wrong does not bring about an, "I must have been wrong." Instead the name calling and straight back bone stand with immovable feet take a firm hold. (some do admit to they were wrong or misread something or drew a wrong conclusion)

In turn, we wait for those moments of hypocrisy and gloat over them when the opponent stumbles.

Really quite comical in the end. Must have all been for entertainment because it certainly brings no substance to the mix.

If politicians, talking heads, even forum members, could speak to issues without personal crowing status I think it would all turn out quite differently.

And, on the subject of these talking heads wanting to override states' rights....doesn't it always come down to states' right or perhaps personal rights?

But remember it was not about states' rights, according to Seaoat, it was all about slavery/racism and still is the same. How's that for a big circle! Seaoat is right.

Laughing

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Bob wrote: ....

What gives here?  Markle?  Pacedog?  Anybody?

The pharmaceutical, alcohol, & the church industries.

Well I understand all those play a role in it.  

But why do these republicans/conservatives never try to defend their hypocrisy?  
They're all for "state's rights".  Except when they don't like what a state does and then they're all for the federal government TAKING AWAY the "states rights".
It's the very height of hypocrisy.  And it makes their whole "state's rights" argument become nothing but a bunch of fucking bullshit.



Well said, Bob!!

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Why are republicans/conservatives so hypocritical when it comes to this?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum