Post-Trump GOP

I wouldn’t disagree with that headline. However, I would argue that the right is moving away from conservatism toward nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. And to be fair, that’s a worldwide movement. I think the chaos in the Middle East where we are a key litigant is helping drive that.
 
OUBubba said:
I wouldn’t disagree with that headline. However, I would argue that the right is moving away from conservatism toward nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. And to be fair, that’s a worldwide movement. I think the chaos in the Middle East where we are a key litigant is helping drive that.
Click to expand...
Okay, make the argument.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Thank you. I'll need to read the article when I have more time. Based on the tweet, it seems to show that we've become more partisan, all of us. If the purpose of citing the article is to say well the left has become MORE partisan (volume) then I'm not sure I'd argue that. I'm trying to hold the center and have long lambasted the extremes.
Click to expand...
It's not saying more partisan, it's saying more liberal. take gay marriage for instance, it was only 2000 when California (freaking Cali-Forney) voted by Proposition to ban gay marriage. So at that time California was much more conservative despite still being largely regarded as a blue state and the land of the nuts and flakes. They have moved MUCH further left. And that is generally the paradigm across most issues. America used to be a largely Christian, right-of-center country. IMO, thanks to cable, social media, MSM, Hollywood influence we have seen a large group of America move very far left. Gay marriage was so far off the radar in the 80's that no one ever seriously even proposed it. Had someone proposed it in the 70's, they would have flat been run out of town. When the left accuses the right of trying to pull us towards "extreme" views, they are full of crap. It is the left that has moved the goalpost on what constitutes "extreme" these days.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
It's not saying more partisan, it's saying more liberal. take gay marriage for instance, it was only 2000 when California (freaking Cali-Forney) voted by Proposition to ban gay marriage. So at that time California was much more conservative despite still being largely regarded as a blue state and the land of the nuts and flakes. They have moved MUCH further left. And that is generally the paradigm across most issues. America used to be a largely Christian, right-of-center country. IMO, thanks to cable, social media, MSM, Hollywood influence we have seen a large group of America move very far left. Gay marriage was so far off the radar in the 80's that no one ever seriously even proposed it. Had someone proposed it in the 70's, they would have flat been run out of town. When the left accuses the right of trying to pull us towards "extreme" views, they are full of crap. It is the left that has moved the goalpost on what constitutes "extreme" these days.
Click to expand...


Appreciate the response. The problem I have with the paradigm is that it sets the "center" at no change. Take slavery/civil rights as an example. Abolitionists/Anti-Jim Crow activists are the extremists in the paradigm. Therefore, supporting school integration makes one an "extremist". I'm struggling with accepting that as the starting point.

Yes, we have been liberalizing along social issues for much of our nations history. Heck, the world has been moving in that direction since vacating the Hunter/Gatherer phase. With that, I fully comprehend the gradual transition towards support of LGBTQ rights. To a progressive, that's simply equal rights no different than women getting to vote. It's righting a historical wrong.

I don't like setting these liberal/conservative paradigms based only on social issues but those are where the passion burns hottest.
 
OUBubba said:
I wouldn’t disagree with that headline. However, I would argue that the right is moving away from conservatism toward nationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism. And to be fair, that’s a worldwide movement. I think the chaos in the Middle East where we are a key litigant is helping drive that.
Click to expand...

Nationalism used to be a bi-partisan issue. left and right promoted it for their own reasons. And authoritarianism is on increasing display by leaders of both parties these days. It is not a right-only issue.

As for anti-immigration comments, those opinions are generally about immigration not nationality. I'm actually a huge fan of Mexico and travel there frequently and enjoy every minute of it and have several very good friends that are Mexican nationals so I am not Xeno-phobic. Heck, I've even considered buying a home for retirement there. I do however have very strong feelings about the character of my country staying the same and passing that value system down to future generations. And there is a VERY strong argument to be made that these diasporas that exist in America are tearing away that very value system. It is no accident that the "squad" which largely descend from Muslim origins is the most vocal on issues concerning Israel. It is no accident that people that descend from Mexican origins are the most vocal about MPP. These people may technically be American citizens, but it is very obvious that their allegiance is not really to America.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
It's not saying more partisan, it's saying more liberal. take gay marriage for instance, it was only 2000 when California (freaking Cali-Forney) voted by Proposition to ban gay marriage. So at that time California was much more conservative despite still being largely regarded as a blue state and the land of the nuts and flakes. They have moved MUCH further left. And that is generally the paradigm across most issues. America used to be a largely Christian, right-of-center country. IMO, thanks to cable, social media, MSM, Hollywood influence we have seen a large group of America move very far left. Gay marriage was so far off the radar in the 80's that no one ever seriously even proposed it. Had someone proposed it in the 70's, they would have flat been run out of town. When the left accuses the right of trying to pull us towards "extreme" views, they are full of crap. It is the left that has moved the goalpost on what constitutes "extreme" these days.
Click to expand...
Remember they only wanted civil unions. Also the majority of people (or close to it) are not married today. Why should they have a say what defines a marriage? Did anyone take a poll of married folks?
 
mchammer said:
Remember they only wanted civil unions. Also the majority of people (or close to it) are not married today. Why should they have a say what defines a marriage? Did anyone take a poll of married folks?
Click to expand...
I just did an internet search on polls about gay marriage. None of polling in the last 5 years apparently segregated results from married folks. I suppose they didn’t want the answer knowing there are large groups of divorced, separated, and young people not married who likely support gay marriage 4:1
 
Seattle Husker said:
Appreciate the response. The problem I have with the paradigm is that it sets the "center" at no change. Take slavery/civil rights as an example. Abolitionists/Anti-Jim Crow activists are the extremists in the paradigm. Therefore, supporting school integration makes one an "extremist". I'm struggling with accepting that as the starting point.

Yes, we have been liberalizing along social issues for much of our nations history. Heck, the world has been moving in that direction since vacating the Hunter/Gatherer phase. With that, I fully comprehend the gradual transition towards support of LGBTQ rights. To a progressive, that's simply equal rights no different than women getting to vote. It's righting a historical wrong.

I don't like setting these liberal/conservative paradigms based only on social issues but those are where the passion burns hottest.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that one's impression of equality is a matter of opinion and issue framing more than it is an objective analysis, so we're defining "the center" according to subjective opinions of what equality means rather than true moderationof where people actually are. I think a better and more accurate approach is to acknowledge that sometimes extremism is appropriate. (In other words, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue, as Goldwater said.)

Slavery is an easy one, because there's pretty much no disagreement on it now (at least in the West), and there's pretty much no disagreement that it's unequal. Not having slavery now is considered a very broad moderate position that stretches very far to the left and to the right. In 1600, not having slavery was a radical position. It would have wildly changed the labor markets all over the world and made radical social changes. By no serious standard was it moderate. It was radical. However, if we could have gotten rid of slavery in 1600, would that have been the right thing to do? Of course. It would have been extremism in defense of liberty.
 
Yeah, if I think people should come to America by legal means and channels, I'm xenophobic. No consequences for those people coming here, but I should be punished for not getting a covid shot or wearing a mask where mandated.

Love the ongoing Dim hypocrisy.
 
back on Post-Trump topic....

Seeing Tammy Bruce on Fox...I find it most un-useful to continue to call out Rhino's and Trump-haters on Fox, here and other platforms. I'm not a huge fan of Trump but certainly voted for him twice because he was the GOP guy. While it may be true that withholding your vote from Trump or even worse...voting for Biden did help get Biden elected....It is a dumb political move to continue to beat that dead horse. The more you scold people in that boat, the harder you make it for them to acknowledge that error and move on. You can say "I told you so" once....after that you're just creating resentment.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It looks like the statement was given after Gaetz and Greenberg ended their "bromance." They need the girl herself to accuse Gaetz on the record.

Gotta love Gaetz's statements. He denies everything criminal, of course. However, he doesn't deny things that paint a pretty slimy picture. He doesn't deny that he paid "travel costs" for a bunch of young women he called his "girlfriends." He also put the "as an adult" qualifier on his denial that he nailed 17-year-old. And of course, he showed naked pictures of the women he banged to other House members. In a sane political climate, that would end your career. But Gaetz will play the "political witch hunt" card (even though the investigation started under Trump's DoJ), and it'll probably work to survive a primary challenge since Gaetz likes to "own the libs."
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, security cameras of him and the other criminal going through discarded DL's at the DMV to find his "girl" an ID to fly on that would make her old enough is NICE. Ironically, it's probably the same one he had with him at dinner with Tucker where Tucker gave the "uh oh, oh, hell no" face.

His future sister in law on TikTok was critical of him trying to set her up with a 39 or 40 year old. She said "what 39 year old man wants to have a relationship with a 19 year old?" Made me giggle. Oh, sweety...
 
mchammer said:
Then why was he targeted?
Click to expand...
Typically, someone who has something that's a chink in the armor that they don't want out there is a potential target. Like, I'm not a target for these things as I don't galivant around with teenagers. Gaetz...not so much. Side note, a good twitter follow is Matthew Gertz who people confuse with Gaetz. Funny stuff.
 
mchammer said:
Then why was he targeted?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. First, though he's a total bum, his family is loaded, so it's worthwhile to extort him.

Second, the allegations are close to his real character, so his denials aren't going to be given a lot of weight. It's a little like Clinton with Epstein. None of us know if he was actually banging underaged girls at Epstein's place, but we know Clinton is a slimy pervert, so we don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for why he's useless, it's because he's our version of AOC. He's a ****-flinging hoser who does nothing but promote and seek attention for himself. So admittedly, I wouldn't like him even if he was a total family man.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Only "good" people get targeted for extortion? Don't you typically need something to hide that you don't want exposed for extortion to be effective?
Click to expand...

Obviously an extortion attempt can be based on a lie. However, there's a reason why the alleged lie in this case seemed believable about Gaetz. It's consistent with his sliminess.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Two reasons. First, though he's a total bum, his family is loaded, so it's worthwhile to extort him.

Second, the allegations are close to his real character, so his denials aren't going to be given a lot of weight. It's a little like Clinton with Epstein. None of us know if he was actually banging underaged girls at Epstein's place, but we know Clinton is a slimy pervert, so we don't give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for why he's useless, it's because he's our version of AOC. He's a ****-flinging hoser who does nothing but promote and seek attention for himself. So admittedly, I wouldn't like him even if he was a total family man.
Click to expand...
I don't want this to fall into the "speaking up for AOC" category but at least she's got ideals and sticks to them. Maybe we should compare him to Matthew Wiener, Andrew Cuomo, etc. They were sleazy AND lefty. You guys may vehemently disagree with AOC but she's not sleazy and craven. She may be a marxist. :) Tom Cotton, or MarkWayne Mullin (who's out saving the world apparently) or some other far right principled soldier may be the ying to her yang.
 
OUBubba said:
MarkWayne Mullin (who's out saving the world apparently)
Click to expand...

That dude isn't getting talked about enough. He's been stopped twice by US Immigrations in the past week, once in Greece and the other in Uzbekistan. The latter he was caught with a wad of cash reportedly planning to rent a helicopter to fly into Afghanistan to rescue some American Mother and 4 children. In the latter case he threatened the US Ambassador.

Sidenote: the dude is a registered Cherokee Indian Nation member but he looks more Caucasian than Senator Warren who rightfully gets a lot of grief for claiming Native American heritage ancestry.
 
Seattle Husker said:
That dude isn't getting talked about enough. He's been stopped twice by US Immigrations in the past week, once in Greece and the other in Uzbekistan. The latter he was caught with a wad of cash reportedly planning to rent a helicopter to fly into Afghanistan to rescue some American Mother and 4 children. In the latter case he threatened the US Ambassador.

Sidenote: the dude is a registered Cherokee Indian Nation member but he looks more Caucasian than Senator Warren who rightfully gets a lot of grief for claiming Native American heritage ancestry.
Click to expand...
Well, to be accurate, he is a Cherokee and grew up in Adair county (the heart of the Cherokee Nation). Thanks to 300 years of mostly "friendly" contact with Europeans and relatively weak genetic traits when compared to say Koreans, someone can be half or a quarter Cherokee and you couldn't tell it. Chad Smith is a former Chief of the Cherokees and is at least half and if you saw him outside of a tribal setting you might not think him Indian. If I were to rank from darkest to lightest Indians it would be

That said, MarkWayne's a nutjob. We have many mutual friends. He's a former high school wrestler. That really is all that needs be said.
 
OUBubba said:
I don't want this to fall into the "speaking up for AOC" category but at least she's got ideals and sticks to them. Maybe we should compare him to Matthew Wiener, Andrew Cuomo, etc. They were sleazy AND lefty. You guys may vehemently disagree with AOC but she's not sleazy and craven. She may be a marxist. :) Tom Cotton, or MarkWayne Mullin (who's out saving the world apparently) or some other far right principled soldier may be the ying to her yang.
Click to expand...

I get that AOC is insanely hot by Oklahoma standards, but you overstate her merits.

The comparison isn't because AOC is similar to Gaetz in their sexual practices. It wouldn't shock me if she blew some guys to get where she is, but I don't have any evidence of that, so I wouldn't make the allegation. They're similar because they're extreme political show horses. They've been elected to Congress. It's a great privilege to be a lawmaker, but instead of doing their jobs, both of them largely shun real legislative work to grandstand to the worst elements of their respective parties to promote their own notoriety and fame. They exemplify and epitomize what's wrong with politics.
 
OUBubba said:
That said, MarkWayne's a nutjob. We have many mutual friends. He's a former high school wrestler. That really is all that needs be said.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with him using his position to help get some Americans out of Afghanistan. His attempts to play Rambo and rescue them himself is over the top. Can you imagine if Isis-K were able to take a US Congressman hostage? That's beyond idiotic.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have no problem with him using his position to help get some Americans out of Afghanistan. His attempts to play Rambo and rescue them himself is over the top. Can you imagine if Isis-K were able to take a US Congressman hostage? That's beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...
He should have called The Expendables.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I get that AOC is insanely hot by Oklahoma standards, but you overstate her merits.

The comparison isn't because AOC is similar to Gaetz in their sexual practices. It wouldn't shock me if she blew some guys to get where she is, but I don't have any evidence of that, so I wouldn't make the allegation. They're similar because they're extreme political show horses. They've been elected to Congress. It's a great privilege to be a lawmaker, but instead of doing their jobs, both of them largely shun real legislative work to grandstand to the worst elements of their respective parties to promote their own notoriety and fame. They exemplify and epitomize what's wrong with politics.
Click to expand...
My point is Gaetz would be a Biden guy if he thought it would help his cause. He’s not an idealogue he’s a huckster. She’s an idealogue who will not change her flag based on who can benefit her.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I have no problem with him using his position to help get some Americans out of Afghanistan. His attempts to play Rambo and rescue them himself is over the top. Can you imagine if Isis-K were able to take a US Congressman hostage? That's beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...
I can think of much more idiotic things that have been done involving “ISIS-K” by someone for whom you voted. You don’t even have to imagine it. You can just read the news.
 
OUBubba said:
My point is Gaetz would be a Biden guy if he thought it would help his cause. He’s not an idealogue he’s a huckster. She’s an idealogue who will not change her flag based on who can benefit her.
Click to expand...

It's easy for someone to come across as ideologically pure when doing so is always to his or her benefit. She got elected by portraying her opponent (who was a serious legislator of real accomplishment) as insufficiently leftist and presenting herself as the real deal. She's in a lopsidedly Democratic district in one of the most hard left cities in the United States. It was an easy call. She also gets heavy media attention and fawning because of her radicalism.

The real test would come if being a far left kook became a liability for her. For example, suppose she got drawn out of her district leaving her with no choice but to quit or run statewide such as for Senate or Governor. That would force her to attract a very different brand of voters in the primary and the general election. NYC Democrats are kooks, but outside of NYC (both in the NYC suburbs and especially upstate), they're more like Pennsylvania or Ohio Democrats. Would she be as nutty and likely lose, or would she try to moderate either in position or style? My guess is that she'd do the latter if it meant saving her ***.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It's easy for someone to come across as ideologically pure when doing so is always to his or her benefit. She got elected by portraying her opponent (who was a serious legislator of real accomplishment) as insufficiently leftist and presenting herself as the real deal. She's in a lopsidedly Democratic district in one of the most hard left cities in the United States. It was an easy call. She also gets heavy media attention and fawning because of her radicalism.

The real test would come if being a far left kook became a liability for her. For example, suppose she got drawn out of her district leaving her with no choice but to quit or run statewide such as for Senate or Governor. That would force her to attract a very different brand of voters in the primary and the general election. NYC Democrats are kooks, but outside of NYC (both in the NYC suburbs and especially upstate), they're more like Pennsylvania or Ohio Democrats. Would she be as nutty and likely lose, or would she try to moderate either in position or style? My guess is that she'd do the latter if it meant saving her ***.
Click to expand...
You may be right. Or she may stick to her far left agenda and go back to bartending. I wonder if anyone has ever asked her if she reported all of her cash income when she was a bartender. Get her @doocy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top