Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 239

Thread: Can American conservatism survive intact & unadulterated?

  1. #91
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If she broke the law, do you think she should go to jail? Or do you want to give her a pass because 'we don't jail political opponents.'
    Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

    Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
    You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

    So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.

  2. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Those two sentences don't go together. But it does illustrate a binary view of rule-of-law and justice that's disturbing. I think you should stop referencing the *jail* card because:

    Not all crimes means the guilty spend time in *jail*. Especially not for financial crimes (see Wells Fargo).
    You probably can't name one person who's been found guilty of violating Federal Election Commission laws that's spending time in *jail*.

    So stop using the *jail* reference as if it means justice.
    The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.

  3. #93
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The mishandling of classified information, obstruction of justice and possible perjury charges are examples which would could lead to jail sentences. We don't even need to get into 'pay for play' which her foundation is likely guilty of but would be nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt until someone flipped.
    Everything you said could easily be applied to Trump, Inc.

  4. #94
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,086
    She's already been investigated and if that investigation had revealed she broke the law she should have been prosecuted. Further calls now for new investigations are because the person calling for it doesn't like her politics not because of any new evidence.

    The government should not determine that political opponents face extra scrutiny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    She's already been investigated and if that investigation had revealed she broke the law she should have been prosecuted. Further calls now for new investigations are because the person calling for it doesn't like her politics not because of any new evidence.

    The government should not determine that political opponents face extra scrutiny.
    So if the people investigating Clinton come up as untrustworthy and politically biased we should do... what exactly? Put the shoe on the other foot. Say the people who are currently investigating Trump declare him innocent. A year later they were shown to be Trump donors who lied about things during the investigation.

  6. #96
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,086
    If the people investigates were biased then maybe they should be investigated.

    Unless there's new evidence then the old case should remain closed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  7. #97
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So if the people investigating Clinton come up as untrustworthy and politically biased we should do... what exactly? Put the shoe on the other foot. Say the people who are currently investigating Trump declare him innocent. A year later they were shown to be Trump donors who lied about things during the investigation.
    What are you going on about?


    Let's get off the Trump Train for a minute, and even set aside investigations and prosecutions. Lewk, I'd like you to define "conservatism", and give examples of conservative principles. It's pretty hard to know these days, since there are so many self-proclaimed conservatives in the GOP acting otherwise.

    I have a friend who considers herself a conservative Democrat (because she cares about fiscal issues, debt, deficit). Her husband calls himself a liberal Republican (because he cares about Civil Rights, equal rights, fair justice). That's how they set the scale for themselves, but when push comes to shove they both vote along party lines....and usually feel disappointed with their party, and politics in general. Fairly common?

    I don't know if it's because our political parties are structured badly, or we expect too much from just two parties, or we're operating with bad definitions, or something else. (It's probably multi-factorial like most everything is). But it seems to me that using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" as loosely as we do, or like a subset within a (R) or (D) poliotical framework, isn't working out so well.
    Last edited by GGT; 05-02-2018 at 03:50 AM.

  8. #98
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Some questions for "conservatives":

    Why would the 'conservative' Republican Speaker Ryan force the resignation of the House Chaplain for saying a prayer about the poor before a vote on taxation?

    For that matter, why does congress even have a designated Chaplain? Why do they always begin voting sessions with prayer? And why are there congressional prayer breakfasts?

    How can anyone who honors the US Constitution call themselves a "conservative" with that kind of environment?

  9. #99
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    An interesting pov from a conservative. It reminds me of the "Compassionate Conservative" meme from a few decades ago:

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...terview-218364

    ‘Americans are Being Held Hostage and Terrorized by the Fringes’

    An exit interview with the American Enterprise Institute’s Arthur Brooks.

    By TIM ALBERTA
    May 13, 2018

  10. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What are you going on about?


    Let's get off the Trump Train for a minute, and even set aside investigations and prosecutions. Lewk, I'd like you to define "conservatism", and give examples of conservative principles. It's pretty hard to know these days, since there are so many self-proclaimed conservatives in the GOP acting otherwise.

    I have a friend who considers herself a conservative Democrat (because she cares about fiscal issues, debt, deficit). Her husband calls himself a liberal Republican (because he cares about Civil Rights, equal rights, fair justice). That's how they set the scale for themselves, but when push comes to shove they both vote along party lines....and usually feel disappointed with their party, and politics in general. Fairly common?

    I don't know if it's because our political parties are structured badly, or we expect too much from just two parties, or we're operating with bad definitions, or something else. (It's probably multi-factorial like most everything is). But it seems to me that using the terms "conservative" or "liberal" as loosely as we do, or like a subset within a (R) or (D) poliotical framework, isn't working out so well.
    I actually agree. Republican and Democrat are parties with no consistency. Is BIG government that controls you and your actions GOOD or is it BAD?

    Democrats say "government should stay out of the bedroom" but wants government to be in your wallet.

    Republicans say "government should stay out of your wallet" but wants government to be in your bedroom.

    Kinda screwed up? The real debate should be Libertarian vs Authoritarian. Not every issue you will be in favor of more or less government control but in general people should pick what they think is best. Government control over you or not.

  11. #101
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #102
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I actually agree. Republican and Democrat are parties with no consistency. Is BIG government that controls you and your actions GOOD or is it BAD?
    I think it's a mistake to think of government as either big/small or good/bad. It's essential and necessary for our constitutional republic, full stop.

    Democrats say "government should stay out of the bedroom" but wants government to be in your wallet.

    Republicans say "government should stay out of your wallet" but wants government to be in your bedroom.
    Another mistake is putting political parties in such tight boxes like that, or framing everything in money vs privacy terms. There are overlaps, obviously, and that's where modernity and the constitution intersect, and fuel disagreements.

    Kinda screwed up? The real debate should be Libertarian vs Authoritarian. Not every issue you will be in favor of more or less government control but in general people should pick what they think is best. Government control over you or not.
    Our political parties are what's screwed up. They've let the fringe run the show. And now many Americans view government (and governance) as antithetical to liberty, even justice. That's sad.



    Lewk, you may love Gorsuch tilting the SCOTUS to "conservative", but if it means overturning Roe v Wade to appease the Christian right, then you can't really call yourself a Libertarian.

  13. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    I agree government is essential. The SIZE of it is what the debate is on. Without government you just have lawless killing and looting. The classical 'poor, nasty, brutish and short' paradigm. Government IS necessary however let's not pretend it isn't a necessary evil. It is the willful sacrifice of inherent liberty and dignity over to others in exchange for safety from internal and external threat. This is why I'm in favor of small government but will always support putting down internal threats (criminals) hard and having a robust national defense.

  14. #104
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    You say "small government" but mean narrow in scope; you're all about safety and threats, with big military, big police forces, big prisons. You mostly see liberty in the context of crime, and throw dignity in for good measure. Not a big fan of the Bill of Rights, eh?

    I think government is also a cooperative thing, with agreements between states and the federal level that make us a more cohesive union. It's necessary to have a common currency, interstate roads, consistent application of laws and protection of rights, etc. Sometimes there are too many jobs/employees within govt that make it less efficient, and it could be 'smaller' in size. But just because that's difficult and challenging doesn't make it evil.

  15. #105
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Don't forget Big Surveillance, at least of Muslims.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You say "small government" but mean narrow in scope; you're all about safety and threats, with big military, big police forces, big prisons. You mostly see liberty in the context of crime, and throw dignity in for good measure. Not a big fan of the Bill of Rights, eh?

    I think government is also a cooperative thing, with agreements between states and the federal level that make us a more cohesive union. It's necessary to have a common currency, interstate roads, consistent application of laws and protection of rights, etc. Sometimes there are too many jobs/employees within govt that make it less efficient, and it could be 'smaller' in size. But just because that's difficult and challenging doesn't make it evil.
    You do realize the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the government to curtail freedoms from individuals?

  17. #107
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Except for things like privacy, freedom from torture, freedom from unreasonable searches & seizure and excessive bail, etc, at least when it comes to black people and Muslims.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #108
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    You do realize the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the government to curtail freedoms from individuals?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Except for things like privacy, freedom from torture, freedom from unreasonable searches & seizure and excessive bail, etc, at least when it comes to black people and Muslims.
    Or women's access to birth control and abortion.

    Lewk, conservative ideology used to value and weigh the Public Good -- and enacted laws to protect individuals from harm, while also trying to limit govt overreach or intrusion (see the EPA, NIH, CDC, etc.) SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the constitution, and since you wanted a conservative bench (Gorsuch), I wonder how you can still call yourself a Libertarian?

  19. #109
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Influential American conservative on the largest US network openly encouraging Mueller's targets/witnesses to destroy evidence:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    LOL did you even listen to the segment? This isn't advice he's giving them this is him mocking what Hillary Clinton's team did.

  21. #111
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    LOL did you even listen to the segment? This isn't advice he's giving them this is him mocking what Hillary Clinton's team did.
    Given that there is no legitimate comparison to what Clinton did this just makes you look dumber than Hannity. He did this twice and the jury's out on whether or not he's encouraging witnesses and targets to not cooperate with Mueller (he is).
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  22. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,919
    “Maybe Mueller’s witnesses, I don’t know, if I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead:

    “Delete all your emails, and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on your phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces, use BleachBit, remove the sim cards.”

    “And then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.’”

    “How do you think that would work out for everybody who Mueller’s demanding their phones of tonight?” Hannity asked, before answering his own question:

    “I’m certain the result would not be the same as Hillary’s.”


    So lets review...

    The result of Hillary's team smashing phones, using bleach bit etc was with big fat zero consequences. Hannity is saying very explicitly that if other people did it "I'M CERTAIN THE RESULT WOULD NOT BE THE SAME" IE if they did it there would be consequences.

    I'm not sure how clearer you can get.

  23. #113
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Lewk, you do realize that Hannity is a political opinion/editorial show, and not a fact-based NEWS show, right?

    If "conservatives" want to be taken seriously, and as part of a Republican Party that takes Rule of Law seriously....then stop getting your "news" from Fox & Friends! It's a "destructive propaganda machine": http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/07/medi...per/index.html

    Not much more than Trump TV at this point, with Hannity as one of Trump's Trolls. Conflating Mueller's Russia probe with Hillary Clinton's e-mail investigation is meant to inflame the "Lock her up" base, sow mistrust in the FBI, and dismiss their report to DoJ or congress. (Pretty stupid, since they *could* conclude that Trump's intents were reckless or stupid but not illegal.)

  24. #114
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    “Maybe Mueller’s witnesses, I don’t know, if I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead:

    “Delete all your emails, and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on your phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces, use BleachBit, remove the sim cards.”

    “And then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller and say, ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.’”

    “How do you think that would work out for everybody who Mueller’s demanding their phones of tonight?” Hannity asked, before answering his own question:

    “I’m certain the result would not be the same as Hillary’s.”


    So lets review...

    The result of Hillary's team smashing phones, using bleach bit etc was with big fat zero consequences. Hannity is saying very explicitly that if other people did it "I'M CERTAIN THE RESULT WOULD NOT BE THE SAME" IE if they did it there would be consequences.

    I'm not sure how clearer you can get.
    Again, this just makes both you and Hannity look dumb. This rant was in direct response to reports that Mueller's team had requested witnesses' phones after they had determined that Manafort had attempted to communicate with them in order to coordinate stories in a manner equivalent to witness tampering and a direct violation of the conditions of his release. This request was part of the prosecution of a likely criminal and it's likely that some of the witnesses have themselves been targets of the probe and are cooperating as part of a plea deal. If any of them were to follow Hannity's "advice" and destroy evidence in order to obstruct or derail the prosecution that would be illegal.

    Clinton deleted a number of emails in 2014 like any normal person might do. After this, State asked her to hand over work-related e-mails. Clinton told her employees to hand over emails that were work-related or might arguably be work-related. Her lawyer and an aide did so and they attempted to distinguish work-related emails from personal emails using a search strategy they devised without her direction & supervision. The aide told another employee who managed Clinton's server that Clinton did not need any emails older than 60 days. In 2015 the Benghazi nutjobs subpoenaed Clinton for emails about Libya in general and Benghazi in particular. Clinton indicated that she had already turned over those emails to the State Department. Between these last two events, the employee who had previously been told by Clinton's aide that he could delete all emails older than 60 days because Clinton no longer had any need for them, realized he hadn't done so and therefore deleted the emails. Unsurprisingly, he tried to do a very thorough job in deleting them, because of the sensitive contents. I try to do the same when disposing of computers, old hard-drives and phones. The FBI later recovered a number of emails that were work-related and hadn't been turned over, but nothing that would've changed the outcome of any investigation, and, importantly, no evidence that they had been withheld in order to obstruct an investigation.

    Hannity, in response to a report of attempted witness tampering by the target of a major federal criminal investigation, encouraged those witnesses--some of whom may be targets themselves--to destroy the evidence of this attempted witness tampering, in an attempt to obstruct or derail the investigation and protect a likely criminal. He's right that those witnesses would not be treated in the same way as Clinton if they were to follow this advice--because their actions would likely be criminal, directly obstruct a criminal investigation and protect a likely criminal. The last bit about "Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice under the law" is just so fucking pathetic, stupid and cringeworthy. I'm not surprised you lapped it right up.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #115
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,086
    Are you aware of the concept of sarcasm? Reading that transcript it seems incredibly clear he's making a [stupid] sarcastic point and not a serious recommendation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #116
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    I am aware of the questionable ways in which people like Trump & Hannity abuse the "just kidding" excuse. Are you listening, Russia?

    It's pretty clear what hannity thinks about the Mueller investigation and what Trump should do with the special counsel. It's not a stretch to think that he wants the investigation to be obstructed.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #117
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,086
    Yes but from that transcript he has quite clear plausible deniability to obstruction claims. He's a dickhead but he's not a moron about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  28. #118
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Sure, he's not unlike Putin in that respect.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #119
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,086
    Indeed, he's malevolent and knows what he is doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  30. #120
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,096
    Modern American conservatism:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •