RNC

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Interesting to see the different perspectives about his speech, here and in the media. I thought it was flat, even through the fear mongering parts. I had that ready to pass out after Thanksgiving dinner feeling. I watched a bunch of news after it and reviews were mixed. Some of his usual media supporters that were pumped up pre speech mentioned they wished he was more upbeat like Ivanka when commenting on the heavy doom and gloom sections. I don't think anything he said hurts or helps him it was just kind of blah.

Though I am surprised more of the I vote for a party types weren't put off by how far left he veered at times. He really is a democrat in disguise. I wouldn't be surprised if he chose to run as a republican for no other reason than he knew that would be his best chance to make it through the primaries.

But I don't share his opinions that the US is on the precipice of a cliff. Things could be better, you can say that even when things are pretty good. As I watched it I saw a neighbor ride by on a $4000 Yeti bike. Another pulled up to the mailboxes in a $70000 truck and as usual lots of families walking down the path to the side of my house in our calm cul-de-sac. Myself I was trying not to let my $12 sandwich from the boutique mom and pop should in town drip oil and vinegar on my $3000 Younger sofa.

I'd say socially he's more democrat than republican but again, I prefer that.  I think it's awesome he had a member of the LGBTQ (when did they add the "Q" in) speak at the convention and that all the delegates cheered for him.  

As for your view of the economy,  my neighbors kid just bought a new $40,000 truck, $0 down, tax, tags and other fees factored into a 7 year loan.  You can't measure the economy by how deep some wish to get into debt.   While life may be great on your cul-de-sac, the numbers on how many people exited the work force, how many are on food stamps and the decrease in the average family income are better indicators that the economy isn't as good as the media and Obama would lead us to believe.  

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd say socially he's more democrat than republican but again, I prefer that.  I think it's awesome he had a member of the LGBTQ (when did they add the "Q" in) speak at the convention and that all the delegates cheered for him.  

Except for Mike Pence who wanted to divert funding from HIV/Aids research and throw it into harmful conversion therapy. Of course he needed a running mate to calm the extreme socially conservative crowd. 

 

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Except for Mike Pence who wanted to divert funding from HIV/Aids research and throw it into harmful conversion therapy. Of course he needed a running mate to calm the extreme socially conservative crowd. 

 

Yeah, admittedly I wasn't thrilled with the selection of Pence 1) I didn't know much about him, 2) What I did know was that he was very right socially.  I did watch his acceptance speech and I thought he did a good job introducing himself to the nation.  I'm a bit more comfortable with his selection but cautious.

Alot of what I'm seeing in politics leads me to believe our political system is very flawed on both sides.  Politicians run on a platform and are elected based on their platform.  How do we differentiate the actions of an individual politician from the desires of the majority that put him in office.  

Politicians are supposed to act and vote on issues based on the position and interests of the majority of their constituents.  In the past we, as individual citizens, got to vote on those issues, today our elected officials vote on our behalf on most of the issues today.  

When a guy like Pence gets elected Governor of Indiana does that mean the majority of voters in Indiana wanted that funding diverted and Pence was doing his job on behalf of those voters or was Pence acting on his own beliefs and against the wishes of his voters.  

As outsiders do we evaluate a politicians voting record as an indication of what their personal beliefs are or are they actually just representing their constituents wishes?  

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I'm not sure that hurts HRC. People think this country is going in the wrong direction, but the presidents job approval is on the positive side. 

Certainly. I think hyper-partisan entrenchment is paralysing the country, but approve of the president's performance in that I don't believe anyone else (Republican, Democrat, or otherwise) would be able to do a better job in the current climate. People may want a change from politics as usual, but that doesn't mean they want change to come in the form of a narcissistic demagogue agitating political tensions into a powder keg, for which he can't wait to strike the match.

[saevel25]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Alot of what I'm seeing in politics leads me to believe our political system is very flawed on both sides.  Politicians run on a platform and are elected based on their platform.  How do we differentiate the actions of an individual politician from the desires of the majority that put him in office.  

I absolutely agree. 

19 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

When a guy like Pence gets elected Governor of Indiana does that mean the majority of voters in Indiana wanted that funding diverted and Pence was doing his job on behalf of those voters or was Pence acting on his own beliefs and against the wishes of his voters. 

That is a good question, and one I think anyone elected to office needs to consider first before enacting a policy 

[krupa]

50 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd say socially he's more democrat than republican but again, I prefer that.  I think it's awesome he had a member of the LGBTQ (when did they add the "Q" in) speak at the convention and that all the delegates cheered for him.

This is one of the biggest, most confusing contradictions I've seen from Republicans.  They don't want the guy to get married or adopt children, they want the right to refuse him service in their stores and to treat their gay children with "conversion therapy"... but they cheer the guy?  Was that for the cameras?  He's super rich, so maybe money really does solve all problems.

The only bigger, confusing contradiction I can think of is that there are any LGBTQ Republicans at all!  The RNC platform is officially and clearly anti-LGBT: http://qz.com/738299/reminder-this-is-the-republican-partys-platform-on-lgbt-rights/

[Braivo]

14 minutes ago, krupa said:

This is one of the biggest, most confusing contradictions I've seen from Republicans.  They don't want the guy to get married or adopt children, they want the right to refuse him service in their stores and to treat their gay children with "conversion therapy"... but they cheer the guy?  Was that for the cameras?  He's super rich, so maybe money really does solve all problems.

The only bigger, confusing contradiction I can think of is that there are any LGBTQ Republicans at all!  The RNC platform is officially and clearly anti-LGBT: http://qz.com/738299/reminder-this-is-the-republican-partys-platform-on-lgbt-rights/

A very small, influential segment of the GOP is anti-gay. The rest of the party has caught up with modern times. Trump has destroyed that small group of party insiders, I suspect you will hear very little anti-gay rhetoric from the GOP going forward, last night changed the course of the party for good. 

Maybe Ted Cruz and his dwindling group of hardcore evangelicals will form a new party, but I think most will fall in line with the new wave. Trump's show of humility last night when he deemed himself unworthy of the evangelical support was a magnificent display. 

[drmevo]

11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Trump's show of humility last night when he deemed himself unworthy of the evangelical support was a magnificent display. 

Someone's been reading Breitbart!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/trump-embraces-gays-evangelicals-acceptance-speech/

I'll admit, that is probably the most humble thing I've ever heard him say, but unfortunately that's saying very little and it's really bordering on being a humble brag.

Also from that article, there is this (he's talking about Evangelicals):

Quote

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.

An amendment which, by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.

I have big problems with these statements.  First of all, no law is preventing Evangelicals from saying whatever they want. Donald apparently doesn't understand how free speech works.  Secondly, why should churches be tax-exempt at all?  Let them write off their charitable donations and work like everyone else. 

[Chilli Dipper]

27 minutes ago, Braivo said:

A very small, influential segment of the GOP is anti-gay. The rest of the party has caught up with modern times. Trump has destroyed that small group of party insiders, I suspect you will hear very little anti-gay rhetoric from the GOP going forward, last night changed the course of the party for good. 

Maybe Ted Cruz and his dwindling group of hardcore evangelicals will form a new party, but I think most will fall in line with the new wave. Trump's show of humility last night when he deemed himself unworthy of the evangelical support was a magnificent display. 

That all assumes that Trump wins and takes over the party apparatus. When he loses (and burns all bridges between himself and the GOP), the scorched-earthers will re-assume the reins of policy-making, declare that the only reason Trump lost was because he wasn't conservative enough (as McCain and Romney were before him), and push the party ever further to the right on social issues.

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

That all assumes that Trump wins and takes over the party apparatus. When he loses (and burns all bridges between himself and the GOP), the scorched-earthers will re-assume the reins of policy-making, declare that the only reason Trump lost was because he wasn't conservative enough (as McCain and Romney were before him), and push the party ever further to the right on social issues.

Another myth/red herring I see repeated often.  Nothing pushes the right farther right, it's always been in the same position.  That is the very nature of conservatism.  

The gap between right and left has widened, yes, but it's because the left has moved farther and farther left, esp the past 8 years.

Couple examples:

Gay marriage:  not long ago this was not supported by left or right, Obama and Clinton openly opposed it.  Now it's mainstream but conservatives still don't support it.  They haven't moved farther right, they remain where they were.

Trans bathrooms:  Just a year ago, no one supported men going into ladies restrooms and locker rooms.  Now it's all the rage of the left.  The right remains opposed to it, again, they didn't move right, the left took a giant leap left.  

There are many more ways this has occurred.  JFK would not be a Democrat today, hell, his views were more right than Trump's are now.  

The social gap between the 2 parties has widened but it's not because the right is shifting farther right.  Just the opposite.

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Another myth/red herring I see repeated often.  Nothing pushes the right farther right, it's always been in the same position.  That is the very nature of conservatism.  

The gap between right and left has widened, yes, but it's because the left has moved farther and farther left, esp the past 8 years.

Couple examples:

Gay marriage:  not long ago this was not supported by left or right, Obama and Clinton openly opposed it.  Now it's mainstream but conservatives still don't support it.  They haven't moved farther right, they remain where they were.

Trans bathrooms:  Just a year ago, no one supported men going into ladies restrooms and locker rooms.  Now it's all the rage of the left.  The right remains opposed to it, again, they didn't move right, the left took a giant leap left.  

There are many more ways this has occurred.  JFK would not be a Democrat today, hell, his views were more right than Trump's are now.  

The social gap between the 2 parties has widened but it's not because the right is shifting farther right.  Just the opposite.

I agree with the bulk of your post but another factor is that the internet and social media has given the extremists a voice they'd never had before.  Up until the last 10 years the extreme haters could only reach those within earshot at protests, there was no global platform for them to spread their hatred from.  

With social media any nut job can create a post, a blog, a video that represents hate, racism, etc and have it go viral.  The result is that people viewing the crap assume that these extremists represent the views of all conservatives.  

[DrvFrShow]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Another myth/red herring I see repeated often.  Nothing pushes the right farther right, it's always been in the same position.  That is the very nature of conservatism.  

The gap between right and left has widened, yes, but it's because the left has moved farther and farther left, esp the past 8 years.

Couple examples:

Gay marriage:  not long ago this was not supported by left or right, Obama and Clinton openly opposed it.  Now it's mainstream but conservatives still don't support it.  They haven't moved farther right, they remain where they were.

Trans bathrooms:  Just a year ago, no one supported men going into ladies restrooms and locker rooms.  Now it's all the rage of the left.  The right remains opposed to it, again, they didn't move right, the left took a giant leap left.  

There are many more ways this has occurred.  JFK would not be a Democrat today, hell, his views were more right than Trump's are now.  

The social gap between the 2 parties has widened but it's not because the right is shifting farther right.  Just the opposite.

The right has moved further right.

1. Gay marriage - the US Supreme Court made the ruling that it was allowed under the 14th Amendment. LGBTs are people. Who knew?

2. Trans bathrooms - This was not the rage of the left. They were a non-issue until the conservatives in the State of North Carolina and in other states decided to make it an issue in order to whip up their evangelical base for the election cycle. Once that happened they became an issue. Also, the law in NC went a lot further than just bathrooms. They've tried these laws in many other states. The American Family Association, part of the evangelical branch of the party, sets up phony situations to trigger fear. The politics of fear at work.

And I beg to differ with you. The GOP today doesn't seem to be very interested in equal rights for all. JFK wouldn't be a Republican today. They pass legislation in states that strip protections for LGBT people. They pass legislation that restrict women's rights to health care and the rights women have over their own bodies. They look for ways to get around court rulings that forbid discrimination using so-called "freedom of religion laws" and now that those are starting to get tossed out by the courts, the latest tactic is the so-called "freedom of speech laws". 

If the extremists are not mainstream, how do they keep getting elected? I'm looking at you, Governor of Oklahoma, Governor of Kansas, Governor of NC, Governor Pence, Governor Walker (WI), Governor of Texas, damn, I could go on for a fairly long paragraph.

[drmevo]

23 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Another myth/red herring I see repeated often.  Nothing pushes the right farther right, it's always been in the same position.  That is the very nature of conservatism.  

The gap between right and left has widened, yes, but it's because the left has moved farther and farther left, esp the past 8 years.

Couple examples:

Gay marriage:  not long ago this was not supported by left or right, Obama and Clinton openly opposed it.  Now it's mainstream but conservatives still don't support it.  They haven't moved farther right, they remain where they were.

Trans bathrooms:  Just a year ago, no one supported men going into ladies restrooms and locker rooms.  Now it's all the rage of the left.  The right remains opposed to it, again, they didn't move right, the left took a giant leap left.  

There are many more ways this has occurred.  JFK would not be a Democrat today, hell, his views were more right than Trump's are now.  

The social gap between the 2 parties has widened but it's not because the right is shifting farther right.  Just the opposite.

I'm not sure it's that much of a myth. You may be correct on those particular social issues you mentioned, but that meme that @DrvFrShow posted earlier in the thread is, by all accounts I have read, accurate. You would never get most of those into the current GOP platform.

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I agree with the bulk of your post but another factor is that the internet and social media has given the extremists a voice they'd never had before.  Up until the last 10 years the extreme haters could only reach those within earshot at protests, there was no global platform for them to spread their hatred from.  

With social media any nut job can create a post, a blog, a video that represents hate, racism, etc and have it go viral.  The result is that people viewing the crap assume that these extremists represent the views of all conservatives.  

Agreed, and it goes for both parties.  I think we need to promote more individual thoughtfulness to counteract the mindless tribalism that has been running amok.  The crappy thing is, some people will say anything if they think it will help their side win - an ends-justifies-the-means kind of attitude.

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

The right has moved further right.

1. Gay marriage - the US Supreme Court made the ruling that it was allowed under the 14th Amendment. LGBTs are people. Who knew?

2. Trans bathrooms - This was not the rage of the left. They were a non-issue until the conservatives in the State of North Carolina and in other states decided to make it an issue in order to whip up their evangelical base for the election cycle. Once that happened they became an issue. Also, the law in NC went a lot further than just bathrooms. They've tried these laws in many other states. The American Family Association, part of the evangelical branch of the party, sets up phony situations to trigger fear. The politics of fear at work.

And I beg to differ with you. The GOP today doesn't seem to be very interested in equal rights for all. JFK wouldn't be a Republican today. They pass legislation in states that strip protections for LGBT people. They pass legislation that restrict women's rights to health care and the rights women have over their own bodies. They look for ways to get around court rulings that forbid discrimination using so-called "freedom of religion laws" and now that those are starting to get tossed out by the courts, the latest tactic is the so-called "freedom of speech laws". 

If the extremists are not mainstream, how do they keep getting elected? I'm looking at you, Governor of Oklahoma, Governor of Kansas, Governor of NC, Governor Pence, Governor Walker (WI), Governor of Texas, damn, I could go on for a fairly long paragraph.

1.  The US Supreme Court has both democratic and republican nominated judges, let's not pretend that the SCOTUS that made gay marriage legal consisted only of democrats.  

1.  Obama was the one that made Trans bathrooms an issue, not the right, did you forget his executive order that trans could use whatever bathroom they identify with.  Up until that point (as liberals were quick to point out) many were already using the bathroom they identified with, so why the need for an executive order?

[DrvFrShow]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

1.  The US Supreme Court has both democratic and republican nominated judges, let's not pretend that the SCOTUS only represents the democrats.  

1.  Obama was the one that made Trans bathrooms an issue, not the right, did you forget his executive order that trans could use whatever bathroom they identify with.  Up until that point (as liberals were quick to point out) many were already using the bathroom they identified with, so why the need for an executive order?

RE SCOTUS - true. Both republican and democratic nominees made that decision.

2. Obama got into the act after the NC law made the headlines and after the demonstrations made national news.

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

RE SCOTUS - true. Both republican and democratic nominees made that decision.

2. Obama got into the act after the NC law made the headlines and after the demonstrations made national news.

I'm pretty sure Obama made the executive order first and NC decided to pass a law that went against the executive order.  

[Gunther]

People may view the right as extreme and certain people on both fringes are.  But the point is, conservatives are and have always been guided by the bible and the constitution.  Those have not changed in a lot of years.  Until something changes in those 2 works that would move people to the right, they remain where they have always been.  

The farther left your views are, the farther the right is from you.  But they've always been there, you probably haven't, unless you've always believed in socialism, anarchy, or other leftist themes that have become more widely accepted of late. 

[DrvFrShow]

People on the left also are guided by the constitution.