Hell Hath No Fury...and other unbelievable stories from GOP officialdom

[seahawk]

How they vote.

That being said... If, for decades, you've been on the receiving end of endless, repetitive, unrelenting attacks on your morals, humanity, patriotism, work ethic, fiscal integrity, etc., etc., etc. Always, always, always, with the implication that your accusers inhabit the high ground and are more virtuous than you in all these and every other way imaginable, it gets pretty fucking old.

To wit:

If you opposed the war in Vietnam, republicans would call you "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican", and bumper stickers declaring "My Country Right or Wrong!", and "America, Love It or Leave It!" were everywhere. Leave the country because you don't agree with that stupid war? Seriously?

If you supported civil rights and the voting rights acts, you were a "Nigger Lover".

If you supported gay rights, and/or thought it was wrong for Reagan to ignore the AIDs epidemic (so that he wouldn't offend his "Moral Majority" supporters), you were either a "queer" or you were a "queer lover", and you were against "Family Values".

if you weren't for Reagan (and the "Fiscal Responsibility Party") increasing the military budget by billions and billions of dollars while nearly tripling the national debt, you were "soft on communism”.

If you supported Medicare &/or Medicaid, you were/are a "socialist", you hate capitalism, and don't believe in free markets. (And back in the 60s, it's likely you were a "communist" too.)

"Pro-Life Party". Yet, once a fetus is born, don't expect "pro-life" republicans to want to extend the hand of government to help that "life", whether it's SNAP, (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), expanding Medicaid coverage for the poor, etc. And don't get me started on brown people trying to immigrate to America.

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you are a "baby killer”, and you're guilty of “infanticide”.

In the 90s republicans used Clinton's attempt at health care reform to once again, characterize democrats as "socialists" in favor of "socialized medicine", against the "free market", which are all, once again, “unAmerican".

Republicans spent > 4 years and tens of millions of dollars (while wrapping themselves in robes of virtue) while pursuing Bill & Hillary Clinton over a land deal, (Whitewater, from the 1970s), which ended in Clinton lying about a blow job and republicans in the House voting to impeach him. Of course, lying under oath is wrong and Clinton never should have committed the act or lied about it, BUT. For the entire 4 years democrats/liberals were portrayed (again) as morally deficient, and OK with what Clinton did. This, despite the fact that all three republican Speakers of the House during those > 4 years, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert, were found to be adulterers or pedophiles themselves.

GW Bush comes along and if you weren't for his war of choice to invade Iraq based on his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie, you were soft on terrorism, and you "are either with us, or against us", meaning for or against America.  Once again, republicans portrayed themselves as the patriotic "real" Americans, and democrats as hating America, and being "unAmerican".

And lest we forget, democrats are the "tax and spend" party while republicans are the "fiscal responsibility party", despite the fact that Reagan nearly tripled the national debt despite raising taxes 11 times, and W doubled the national debt while the economy went over a cliff.

Forgive me, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head. It's not comprehensive, but in my opinion and experience, it's accurate. I could go on about how our first Black president and his family were treated---simply because they're Black, Trump's 5-year-long racist "Birther" crusade, and how the "Fiscal Responsibility Party" is once again exploding the national debt.

That being said..."both sides do it", democrats are not perfect, they're not saints, and, it's politics.

One of the frustrations of being a democrat is how republicans are so much incredibly better at branding. At taking an issue and coming up with a pithy slogan that fits on a bumper sticker. They are 1,000% better than democrats at it. But, like everything in life, there's a Yin and Yang to it. By being so good at their branding, by effectively taking ownership of a meme, they also put themselves in the position of having to live up to that brand. They put the clown suit on themselves. And, when they don't, when they aren't "Moral", aren't "Fiscally Responsible", aren't "pro-life", etc., etc., those of us who are tired of being called and characterized as the opposite, as "unpatriotic" as not "real" Americans for literally decades, take satisfaction at pointing it out.

Clap, clap, clap.

[PhDhawk]

Whoa, sorry bro.

I don’t mean to ignore the bigger point, nor do I try to usually. Not trying to weasel out of a thing. If we can avoid being horse’s asses and just have a civil dialogue, then yes please.

Since you brought it up I’d like to clarify something, and I can’t stress this enough: I claim no moral high ground.

To be honest, I frequent the pols bored more than anything for the lulz.

Now, if the question is, “how is this the candidate your party chose?” That IS a good question. If the question is "how could you vote for this asshole in the election," when the choice is between two candidates; the person who represents your political ideals but is morally reprehensible*, or someone you politically disagree with...the answer is pretty obvious**.




**Actually, it’s not obvious at all.


*cuz "how could you vote for this asshole in the election," when the choice is between two candidates; someone you politically disagree with, or the person who represents your political ideals but is morally reprehensible IN STARK CONTRAST WITH YOUR AND/OR YOUR PARTY’S POLITICAL IDEALS, like for real it’s confuzzling.

and for real, like I said!

lulz

So...like Biden would be a good example?

[PhDhawk]

I guess the price of my morality is higher than a tax cut.

Here you go TDub- PhD’s tolerance is somewhere between child abuse and cannibalism (I’m making the safe, I think, assumption that the latter is off-limits, the size of the tax cut notwithstanding)

I asked the question, i didn't say how I'd vote. Think up whatever example you want.

I agree with you, or the parts where you're not being a pedantic smartass, its probably a sliding scale.

These types of decisions contribute to things like low voter turnout, and voting for third party candidates who have no shot.

But anyway. Keep trying to ever so cutely be a prick to tdub.

[seahawk]

Actually, I put these articles in a separate thread because these two guys seemed just weird, not even like the rest of the GOP or even the rest of the Trumpers, and weird in politics is always interesting.

I mean, Lawler intimidated staffers with a horsewhip that he carried around in his office--seriously? Hunter spends all this donor money on affairs and even spends the night with a mistress in the hotel room his wife has booked and then tries to blame it on her? Ewww. Did he really think that the moment investigators showed her that receipt that she wouldn't crawl out and drive the bus over him?

[Shirley]

Marine Corps Orders Duncan Hunter to Stop Using Emblem on Political Mailers

Representative Duncan Hunter wore the United States Marine Corps’ iconic Eagle, Globe and Anchor emblem on his uniform for years when he deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. But that evidently did not give him license to put it on his campaign materials more than a decade later.

Mr. Hunter, a Republican who has represented a conservative and heavily military district near San Diego since 2009, sent out a mailer this month attacking his opponent and some of his colleagues as radicals and terrorist sympathizers. On the envelope was the official United States Marine Corps emblem. This week, the California congressman got a letter from the Marine Corps telling him he did not have permission to use the symbol and should stop immediately...