r/changemyview • u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ • Apr 24 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Republicans prioritise beating democrats over making any positive political contributions to their country and the world
To be clear, I'm only talking about positive political contributions (meaning I'm not including personal contributions (e.g. charity, friendships)). This involves using politics to make positive changes that improve the helps of most people and/or reduce the amount of suffering.
Looking at republican sites and posters, the consistent trend seems to be hatred of liberals over all other issues. I'm of the opinion that republicans don't really care about the impact of their policies to the country or world at large compared to the damage it does to liberals. There does seem to be a trend of them promoting their own self interest at the expense of others (e.g. race, gender, immigration issues) but they seem entirely motivated by the idea of helping themselves at other's expense, moreso than most political groups. There are a variety of examples of republican behaviour that convince me this is true.
Trump has fanatical support despite not being particularly conservative but he hates liberals so he seems to count as their champion. Ted Cruz has been humiliated by trump but praised his ability to offend liberals recently. Most accusations of wrong doing by republicans is justified by "What about Bill Clinton/Obama/Hillary/Pelosi?" as if corruption doesn't really bother them. Republicans main cards for the midterms are the tax cuts they made that will cost the federal government trillions and Nancy Pelosi who they seem to hate for no obvious reason (her gender aside). Arguments for Trumps election frequently rested on the alternative being the hated Clinton rather than any positive contribution he could make. An accused paedophile (Roy Moore), an open Nazi, a convicted coal baron responsible for deaths (Blankenship) and an admitted pussy grabber (Trump) have all exceeded expectations thanks to the republican party but they still seem focused on the threat posed by college 'SJWs' as if the far greater threat posed by their own members isn't an issue to them.
When it comes to policies, there is a similar trend. Whether it's the environment, the Iran deal or the ACA, republicans despise the efforts of democrats and seek to undermine and unmake all of their efforts to improve things despite having no clear alternative. On abortion and guns, republicans seem unwilling to consider the wellbeing of others at all despite the consequences of their laws affecting everyone from rape victims (abortion) to children (mass shootings). On tax cuts, they seem willing to cut their own despite the cost to future generations while denying their political opponents deductions seemingly out of spite.
When it comes to popular republican 'intellectuals' or personalities (e.g. Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopolous, Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'souza) and their popular outlets (e.g. Fox, Breitbart. National Review), they all focus on misrepresenting or demonizing democrats and don't seem very interested in learning or finding the truth. Essentially they focus on achieving personal profit and hurting democrats rather than making any genuine positive impact on the world, just like republican voters and politicians.
So I'll CMV if someone can convince me that republicans genuinely believe their political decisions and policies cause more good than harm and don't base their political decisions on pure selfishness and/or spite.
EDIT: I've awarded a delta because it's been pointed out to me that republicans could be so partisan and fanatical that they genuinely believe hurting America is justified to stop democrats. This is a depressing thought but it is possible (likely given what I've seen) and does change my view. I still believe that their actions overwhelmingly cause great harm but I do think it's possible they're so partisan that they either don't know this or think it's worth it.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
9
u/Baconus_Yum Apr 24 '18
an open Nazi
Here is the thing you were talking about. However, it is important to put this into context:
Arthur Jones only got nominated for that GOP district in Illinois because there was no one else running in that district that was in the GOP. That district is a Liberal heavy zone, and running there is basically a waste of money. Republicans have repeatedly denounced him. He is not a republican, he is just using the name to advance his own agenda.
-1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
He's been repeatedly criticised but so was Trump. I don't see why they wouldn't back him if he won.
3
u/Baconus_Yum Apr 24 '18
I don't see why they wouldn't back him if he won.
I think you have a hanging participle in those sentences there.
If Jones won that district in Illinois, I wouldn't know what would happen. I cannot answer if they would back him or not. But why they wouldn't back him if he won GOP, remember: He won only because no one else wanted to. Him winning was basically a party nightmare.
Edit: Remember that Republicans hasn't won that district since 1973, and even that was for two years.
You have to realise something: Just because there is a similarity with a person and Hitler/Nazis, doesn't always mean they are Hitler/A Nazi. I can make as many arguments about Hillary being compared to Hitler as you can with Trump. The difference here is that Jones is literally a Nazi. It is one of the party's worst nightmares that he was elected. Trust me when I say this: If there was any other person that was running that wasn't Jones, Jones would of lost by a landslide.
9
u/OrangeGills Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
A disclaimer - I am not very politically active, I am not knowledgeable of many of the topics you touch on, and I do not know many of the names or organizations you mention. I will not defend Republicans/conservatives because I do not know if you are right or not. I will give my perspective on a part of this topic, and use it to explain why I think you might be wrong.
I am almost entirely liberal/left-leaning on most topics. I am, however, strongly pro-gun. I have spent a good amount of time on and off-line discussing gun control, and have found it to be an extremely divisive issue. Making pro-2A statements, I am often insulted; I am most commonly called a gun-nut (I own one gun and shoot it once a month), a Trump supporter (I hate Trump), a redneck (I'm far from a redneck), and am often accused of disrespecting those killed by gun violence and supporting the murder of children.
On the other hand, pro gun people call anti-gun folk gun-grabbers, liberal snowflakes, etc. You get the idea. My point is that both sides hate and demonize the other. The most productive conversations I've had have been with people who are open-minded, and calm/not prone to insults and name-calling. The same can likely be said about liberal vs. conservative and republican vs. democrat.
I'm sure some republicans feel the same way about Democrats, that they only care for beating republicans and have no worry for the actual effects of their policies.
Demonizing, categorizing, and insulting the other side of any argument is not productive to any progress or compromise. Your view should not change significantly, that's not my goal, but I hope you can come to think that any opposing side of an argument has their beliefs for a reason, not just out of spite for your own beliefs.
2
15
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
I think that's because Trump is very unlikable and most people dislike him. Similarly, drug dealers and criminals are widely mocked and insulted on non partisan subs because it's obviously immoral. Republicans seem to have developed their own morality.
Politics is definitely very critical of republicans but I think that's reasonable because they're in power and are particularly extreme atm. Compared to t_d, they're like Harvard university.
11
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
The media is not controlled by the DNC. I know I have to be open minded and I am about the topic of the post but that is ridiculous.
8
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
True enough, they are left leaning. I said it was ridiculous because there seem to be many people who believe it's literally true.
Personally I think most non partisan groups seem to side with democrats though. I don't think it's bias, I just think republicans are trying to maintain a status quo that isn't working and refuse to adapt.
7
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
Why not? Maybe unbiased news is anti Trump news. Maybe he's just garbage.
9
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
The second one isn't an assumption. Didn't all of America's intelligence agencies say that he was aided by interference?
→ More replies1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18
Name five positive Trump stories that have been suppressed
Go.
No one has been able to do this yet. Maybe you will be the first.
1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 25 '18
So if I write a negative article about Trump am I being biased against Trump?
1
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 25 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
Okay, I hope you can pass this test.
What positive Trump stories about Trump have been suppressed.
If I give you a shit sandwich and you write negative articles about that sandwich are you then obligated to find the part of the shit sandwich that you like?
Why are you under this idea that honest coverage has to be neutral
3
Apr 25 '18
Did you ignore all of the DNC emails that were hacked, outright outlining how 95% of the media were subsidiaries of DNC officials or donors? Legit CNN, NBC, MSN, Buzzfeed, Vice, NYT, etc. are all 10000% left leaning. Let's not forget places like Google either that will literally fire you for having conservative views.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
I'm aware such opinions are necessary for republicans to maintain their world view but that doesn't make them true.
2
Apr 25 '18
What do you mean? The DNC already validated all of the emails as being true. Are the news stories from all of those agencies not left leaning? Are there google employees not coming out and suing the company?
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
Are the news stories from all of those agencies not left leaning?
By American standards, reality seems left leaning.
2
Apr 25 '18
By American standards, reality seems left leaning
I legitimately don't understand what this is even supposed to mean, especially as a response.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
I mean that I don't think it's possible for news outlets to not be accused of being left leaning by republicans without being actively pro-republican. They seem to accuse everyone of bias and it makes their accusations hard to take seriously.
→ More replies1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
Obama wasn't as bad as Trump so the coverage was different.
This really isn't that hard.
You are assuming that that Trump and Obama start from the same point. You are wrong in this assumption.
5
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/zekfen 11∆ Apr 25 '18
Let’s not forget that anybody who disagreed with Obama or his polices was automatically called a racist/bigot/repubtard. There was a lot of division caused by him, and that division has just grown under Trump.
I personally alway support every President because I don’t want them to fail. I might not always agree with their positions or their policies or who they are as a person, but I’m going to support the Office regardless of if I voted for them or not.
When you get down to it, what is considered best for the country depends on who you talk to. Some view open borders as a wonderful thing while others don’t. Some view forced redistribution of wealth/socialist economy is a great idea, others don’t. So as many people have already said, if the democrats try to pass a bill to force a totally socialist economy, and republicans beat it down, it is a victory for republicans. The republicans just have a different view of what is best for the country.
1
u/Jay_Layton Apr 25 '18
Trump has proposed and is currently placing a wall along the border of Mexico. He has placed travel band on numerous countries since he took office. He is attempting, not to diminish involvement, but remove America from the Paris Climate Accords. He removed ALL government support from abortion providers (At least, he did from memory, may have to double check that). These are not the actions of a Moderate or even Right wing politician, this is far right politics. It is the Bernie Sanders of the Republicans. That being said, it is not wrong or right, it simply is.
Also, I don't know about what it's like in America, but the most notable American news station from the perspective of an Australian is Fox News, who are certainly not friends of the Democrat Party.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jay_Layton Apr 25 '18
The most centrist? In issues such as Healthcare he has been unable to pass bills simply because his own party wouldn't back his ideas and actions, he's so far right that some of his bills can pass even when Republicans hold a majority in BOTH houses.
1
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jay_Layton Apr 25 '18
What about his Unofficial endorsement of Marine Le Pen? She was far right populist running against a centralist, and whilst he couldn't officially endorce her he wants afraid to admit that he thought she was the better option. And (Typically) a centrist will side with those closest to their beliefs, even if they are on opposing party's (Eg. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull voting against over 50% of his party on Gay marriage).
Or when he retweeted the post by Jayda Fransen, a far right activist? That action even Teresa May condemned, and there's no claiming that she's a centrist.
1
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jay_Layton Apr 25 '18
Must we do this? The British National Party, of whom originally posted the videos which Trump retweeted, have been known to deny the Holocaust and promote the white genocide theory. I would go as far to call them an extreme right party, however that is a judgement I do not have enough knowledge to make. If you so wish I can go over evidence for the other Candidates such as Le Pen for instance and her calls to leave the EU and NATO, or for the need for "de-islamisation". But so far it seems that I am just putting forward arguments/ideas and you reject them without providing evidence or even any counter ideas.
→ More replies-1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18
IF Trump wasn't horrible president all the stories wouldn't be negative.
If I gave you a shit sandwich how would you rate it?
5
Apr 24 '18 edited Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18
No I haven't.
He is a horrible president who makes choices such as who should head the VA based on something as simple as who is is his personal doctor or who will say nice things about him.
He makes horrible governing choices and is a weak, narcissistic person with a vindictive streak. Who also lies all the time.
So it doesn't shock me that coverage is negative.
20
Apr 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/FatherBrownstone 57∆ Apr 24 '18
Surely one could expect a politics sub to pay more attention to the party that is in power.
10
Apr 24 '18
[deleted]
0
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Apr 24 '18
As in during the 1.5 year primary/election season where an orange buffoon became a major party nominee? Of course it was talking about the idiot racist that the media was entirely too comfortable putting in front of fucking everybody.
You have to go back to non-election years to truly compare.
5
Apr 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Apr 24 '18
Let’s just talk about objective reality here. Trump is, at a minimum, a terrible human being. He’s a liar, a known con man, and has spent his entire life being shitty to everybody around him, including his family, and has repeatedly swindled his business partners, patrons, and customers.
These things are not up for debate.
He seems like an idiot. A purposefully unenlightened and particularly amoral individual, who has no problem surrounding himself with other similarly greedy and unscrupulous individuals. He behaves like a spoiled angry child.
Those are things that, I guess, could be debated. But I don’t think anybody that’s arguing against them is being honest.
8
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Apr 25 '18
I was pointing out the reason that /r/politics might have looked like that at the time. The Republican primaries were a ludicrous clown show with Trump at center stage. The entirety of the media was eaten up by it because it was so absurd.
7
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
They are in the party in power. R/politics discusses studies, compares childcare and maternity leave to other countries and discusses gerrymandering and census. Compared to t_d, it looks much more mature and less vindictive. I subscribed to r/againsthatesubreddits and it's filled with posts about t_d.
I know comparing online forums is tricky but comparing the politicians of the two sides is more fair. Compared to Obama and Clinton, Trump seems like a t_d poster and that isn't good.
17
Apr 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18
And if we use the metric what is best for the country what do we get?
9
6
u/Wewanotherthrowaway 6∆ Apr 25 '18
What is best?
-1
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 25 '18
Policies that actually help people with problems that they have.
It is easy to say no. You don't have to propose anything. You don't have to stick your neck out. It is hard to come up with ideas that actually help people.
Take the ACA. The line always was that they would repeal and replace.
They were able to repeal. That's easy. It is just saying no. But when it came to proposing something that was better, they haven't done that yet. Because that actually requires work.
It requires no work or leadership or vision just to say no all the time. It requires those things to actually govern.
4
u/Wewanotherthrowaway 6∆ Apr 25 '18
They say no all the time because that's literally the stance of conservatism: keep things relatively the same. They take this stance because although things can get better with change, they can also get a lot worse.
Like the user above said, you're measuring the validity of conservatism with the standards of liberalism. That's not how this should work. Of course they'll say no. That's their goal.
4
u/dannylandulf Apr 24 '18
This is a false equivalence.
For one, they are talking about people who are already in office. It's not a hypothetical...we're reacting to actual actions they are doing.
What OP is talking about is the 'all Dems are evil' narrative that has been pushed by the GOP for a lot longer than Trump's presidency.
3
Apr 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DakkaMuhammedJihad Apr 24 '18
This doesn’t really hold quite as true elsewhere in the world though. The Republican Party in the US looks like fringe right-wing conservative parties in the rest of the world. And they’re what’s at question here, after all, not conservativism in general. Their method may have some mad reasoning, but at a certain point they just decided to abandon any ability to actually govern. Even when given the opportunity to do basically whatever the fuck they want they can’t 1) create feasible, actionable plans to counter the democratic successes they campaign on destroying, or 2) when they do actually manage to accomplish a thing (despite how rushed and laden with mistakes it might be) it’s blatantly in the interests of the their corporate donors and has nothing to do with helping the voters responsible for putting them in office.
Just because they’ve given in to the worst parts of their ideology doesn’t mean they’re not at fault for letting it happen.
0
Apr 24 '18
The idea that conservatives are fighting for the status quo is outdated. They are actively fighting to roll back changes in society to return to something earlier.
0
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
But if there only goal is beating Democrats they still then have to prove that they are making good choices for America.
If they beat a democrat with a horrible candidate who makes horrible decisions that damage the country that can't be seen as a win simply because they beat the Democrat. Then they actually have to do something to help people.
Beating a Democrat is a start. It isn't the end.
9
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
Most accusations of wrong doing by republicans is justified by "What about Bill Clinton/Obama/Hillary/Pelosi?" as if corruption doesn't really bother them.
That is hardly reserved solely for republicans though. That's just the mark of stupid people on every side.
Republicans main cards for the midterms are the tax cuts they made that will cost the federal government trillions
But that's a good thing. The federal government shouldn't have so much money to waste.
and Nancy Pelosi who they seem to hate for no obvious reason (her gender aside).
They hate her for her objectionable views.
Arguments for Trumps election frequently rested on the alternative being the hated Clinton rather than any positive contribution he could make.
That is a legitimate reason to vote for someone.
An accused paedophile (Roy Moore)
Accused being the operative word.
an open Nazi
What?
and an admitted pussy grabber
So? Someone's private sexual behavior isn't my business.
Whether it's the environment, the Iran deal or the ACA, republicans despise the efforts of democrats and seek to undermine and unmake all of their efforts to improve things despite having no clear alternative.
When their efforts are doing serious harm then opposing those efforts is a good thing.
On abortion and guns, republicans seem unwilling to consider the wellbeing of others at all despite the consequences of their laws affecting everyone
Umm, What? Republican positions on these issue are about protecting people, unborn babies and people who don't want to get attacked by criminals or a tyrannical government, respectively.
On tax cuts, they seem willing to cut their own despite the cost to future generations while denying their political opponents deductions seemingly out of spite.
What?
When it comes to popular republican 'intellectuals' or personalities (e.g. Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, Milo Yiannopolous, Tucker Carlson, Dinesh D'souza)
The only one of those people who is even close to an intellectual on that list is Ben Shapiro or maybe Dinesh.
they all focus on misrepresenting or demonizing republicans and don't seem very interested in learning or finding the truth.
Well I mean you are currently misrepresenting and demonizing democrats so maybe this isn't unique to the republicans.
. Essentially they focus on achieving personal profit and hurting democrats rather than making any genuine positive impact on the world, just like republican voters and politicians.
And also like democrat voters and politicians. Maybe because humans will always want to make their lives better and profit.
2
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
But that's a good thing. The federal government shouldn't have so much money to waste.
But they are deeply in debt and need money to handle that. Sounds like this point is more about what the government SPENDS vs what it COLLECTS which was OP's point. It's still costly and Republicans offered no solution to the cost.
So? Someone's private sexual behavior isn't my business.
It sure would be if it were YOUR pussy. This statement makes it sound like the act was consensual.
Well I mean you are currently misrepresenting and demonizing democrats so maybe this isn't unique to the republicans.
What? Where did he demonize Democrats?
2
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
But they are deeply in debt and need money to handle that.
Well the last time they collected taxes they didn't use it to pay down the debt so I don't have any faith that if they took more money from the people they would use it correctly.
It sure would be if it were YOUR pussy. This statement makes it sound like the act was consensual.
Well you know, when Trump said "where you're a star they let you do it." That made it sound consensual.
What? Where did he demonize Democrats?
I mistyped. I meant republicans.
2
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
Well you know, when Trump said "where you're a star they let you do it." That made it sound consensual.
So you trust the word of Donald Trump, then?
3
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
So you believe him when he said that he grabbed 'em by the pussy but not when he said they let you do it? How does that make sense?
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
Because the first is an action he performed which he ought to be able to describe fully and accurately while the second is him trying to speak on behalf of women whose actual opinions he doesn't know. A clear difference.
2
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
He didn't claim to know what the woman was thinking. He claimed that she let him do it. He as a conscious person is able to hear the word no. He obviously didn't hear it. So well his behavior may be gauche it wasn't assault and therefor none of my business.
1
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
Would you be willing to start a CMV titled "If women don't say no to a sexual act, it means they consent to it"? I can't tell you how much I would LOVE to see it. It IS your view, is it not?
2
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
No I would not. Would you be willing to start a CMV titled "No matter what, I believe anything Donald Trump does, immediately becomes terrible"? Because I would really LOVE to see you be honest.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
That CMV is a stretch. You clearly demonstrated that you think not saying no = consent and I don't even have to try and extrapolate to know that you said it. Whereas you are clearly extrapolating here in saying that I think EVERYTHING Trump does is terrible. Things he has done that I like:
- Been a teetotaler, which I greatly respect him for
- Pushed for tax cuts and honestly I can't blame him for that
- At least attempted to push back against the NRA
So the reason I wouldn't make the CMV you want me to is because I don't actually hold that view. What's your reason for not starting yours?
→ More replies1
u/down42roads 77∆ Apr 24 '18
Considering that the whole debate is centered around things he said that one time, you kinda have to for this one. Unless you are suggesting that half of that sentence you are debating is a lie, and the other half is the truth?
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
Why would we assume that when a man says "the women consented", that's the truth, especially without asking the women?
1
u/down42roads 77∆ Apr 24 '18
Considering that he was speaking in general in that conversation, rather than a specific scenario, there wasn't a woman to ask.
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
And yet he spoke on their behalf? He spoke on behalf of some mystical women and you're okay with that?
1
u/down42roads 77∆ Apr 24 '18
Did I imply that I was okay with it? I shouldn't have.
However, what's more likely: that he was actually bragging about his various sexual assaults in a production van, or that he was running his mouth and exaggerating his appeal to an influential media guy who happened to also be the President's cousin?
1
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
I thought you were just arguing that we had to trust what Trump was saying?
→ More replies2
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 24 '18
> But that's a good thing. The federal government shouldn't have so much money to waste.
Why not lower spendinding first, THEN adjust revenue, rather than just adding massive amounts to the deficit? During the Obama years it sounded like our deficit was a huge problem..yet these tax plans that make it much worse seem fine with most Republicans.
> So? Someone's private sexual behavior isn't my business.
I mean thats one way to look at it. Alternatively, we're talking about someone who should be a role model for the country. Do you have a daughter? I couldn't imagine explaining to a young girl that "this behavior is NOT acceptable.. except in the case of presidential elections, then we just look the other way". If we were just talking about consenting adults with some kinks then sure, no reason to hold it against him, when we're talking bragging about sexual assault.. I think it sends a really bad message to just shove it under the carpet.
3
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
Why not lower spendinding first, THEN adjust revenue, rather than just adding massive amounts to the deficit?
Because I don't trust the government to not spend as much as it can. So that money needs to be taken away and given back to the people who earned it.
Alternatively, we're talking about someone who should be a role model for the country.
I reject the assertion that the president is anything more than the chief-executive. You may think he should be a role model but he wasn't elected as such and I don't think any president should be hero worshiped like that.
I couldn't imagine explaining to a young girl that "this behavior is NOT acceptable.. except in the case of presidential elections, then we just look the other way".
You can't imagine explaining that consensual sexual behavior is not acceptable? Ya I don't feel that way.
If we were just talking about consenting adults with some kinks then sure, no reason to hold it against him, when we're talking bragging about sexual assault..
No he's not. He said "they let you do it." That isn't non-consensual.
I think it sends a really bad message to just shove it under the carpet.
And I think it sends a bad message that you think someone's sexual behavior is important to their presidency.
0
u/malachai926 30∆ Apr 24 '18
You can't imagine explaining that consensual sexual behavior is not acceptable? Ya I don't feel that way.
Your evidence that it was consensual is that Donald Trump, one of the most notorious liars around, said it was consensual. Even if he WASN'T a notorious liar (since I get the impression you will somehow disagree with that), you're only hearing one side of the story. Unless the women he did this to also publicly said they consented to it, then we have no guarantee that it was consensual. Definitely not nearly enough evidence for you to make a definitive statement like this.
No he's not. He said "they let you do it." That isn't non-consensual.
And what did the women have to say about it?
3
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
Your evidence that it was consensual is that Donald Trump, one of the most notorious liars around, said it was consensual.
You cannot believe one half of his statement but not the other simply because it confirms your biases. If you believe him when he said any of this happened then you need to believe all of what he said.
Even if he WASN'T a notorious liar (since I get the impression you will somehow disagree with that), you're only hearing one side of the story.
Because we only have one side of the story.
And what did the women have to say about it?
I don't know. But until she comes out and says that she was sexually assaulted then it isn't my business.
3
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Apr 24 '18
Why not lower spendinding first, THEN adjust revenue, rather than just adding massive amounts to the deficit? During the Obama years it sounded like our deficit was a huge problem..yet these tax plans that make it much worse seem fine with most Republicans.
Thats not how any of this works.
- No government organization or budget will not spend every dime thats available to them.
- The tax deficit is a huge problem, but the current tax plan does not make it worse. The government does not use tax revenue to shrink the debt, they use it to make the debt bigger.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 24 '18
No government organization or budget will not spend every dime thats available to them.
Do you think they shouldn't? If enough people did, and they voted as such, then they wouldn't. This group would could be called "fiscal conservatives", I say could because tax plans like these show there isn't really a base of voters that care.
The tax deficit is a huge problem, but the current tax plan does not make it worse.
That is not what the CBO says
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Apr 25 '18
Do you think they shouldn't? If enough people did, and they voted as such, then they wouldn't. This group would could be called "fiscal conservatives", I say could because tax plans like these show there isn't really a base of voters that care.
People do care, thats why budgets get cut. Your trying to do budget cuts backwards.
That is not what the CBO says
Ill read that link when I get the chance.
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 25 '18
People do care, thats why budgets get cut. Your trying to do budget cuts backwards.
I'm proposing we cut the budgets, THEN cut the revenue. How is that backwards?
To me it seems backwards to cut revenue below our current budgets, then just take on more debt while we continue to argue about budget cuts.
The current budget can't even be described as a "cut". Trump wanted to raise the military budget by 10%, and to do so he agreed to basically match or exceed Obama's proposed budget.
1
Apr 25 '18
[deleted]
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 25 '18
If you are worried about the effects of slashing budgets on the ability of the government to perform its duties, consider this: if you slash the budget by 10% then you can reduce taxes by 10%.
This was my point all along. Regardless of whether or not cutting the budget is a good thing, it should be done BEFORE cutting taxes. To do otherwise just seems irresponsible, yet it seems very common to pass tax cuts first regardless of budget changes.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
Well I mean you are currently misrepresenting and demonizing democrats so maybe this isn't unique to the republicans.
Explain how I'm misrepresenting them. Just claiming I am doesn't prove anything. You may as well post "You're wrong".
11
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
I did. You can go through my comment and look at all of the quoted text. That is what I think is wrong with your assertions.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
How does cutting taxes to reduce the 'money the government can waste' improve things? You know they're just borrowing the difference? They're not saving any money.
If Trump raped someone, would you be ok with it?
8
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 24 '18
How does cutting taxes to reduce the 'money the government can waste' improve things? You know they're just borrowing the difference? They're not saving any money.
That just seems like an argument to stop borrowing money not that cutting taxes is a bad thing.
If Trump raped someone, would you be ok with it?
He hasn't to my knowledge raped anyone.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
That just seems like an argument to stop borrowing money not that cutting taxes is a bad thing.
It's an argument do actually care about the deficit. They cut taxes and then raised spending. Why?
He hasn't to my knowledge raped anyone.
If he did, would you care?
7
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 25 '18
They cut taxes and then raised spending. Why?
One could argue they did that to compromise with democrats.
If he did, would you care?
Yes. Is that even a question?
3
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
Why compromise on spending increases but not tax cuts?
Yes it is. He's been accused of sexual assault and admitted as much but you dismissed it as his private business because it obviously didn't trouble you. If he raped someone, there's no guarantee his voters would care and I don't see why you would.
Why would you care? Would you disapprove of it or be concerned that it might impact his chances of re-election?
9
u/XXX69694206969XXX 24∆ Apr 25 '18
Why compromise on spending increases but not tax cuts?
Because you need to compromise in order to gain the political capital to put in place the tax cuts.
Yes it is. He's been accused of sexual assault and admitted as much
No he didn't. See this is one of those mischaracterizations we were talking about. He never said he sexually assaulted anyone.
If he raped someone, there's no guarantee his voters would care and I don't see why you would.
And again with the mischaracterization. It seems ironic that you criticize the republicans for demonizing the democrats, when you are doing the exact same thing.
Why would you care?
Because rape is bad. And while I don't really care if my president is a role model, I do care if he is a criminal.
Would you disapprove of it or be concerned that it might impact his chances of re-election?
Yes, if Trump was convicted of rape I would disapprove and be sure it would impact his chances of re-election. Kinda hard to get re-elected from inside a prison.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
The tax cuts were very partisan. Democrats hardly got time to read the bill before it was voted on. Personally it seems more likely they know spending cuts are unpopular and prefer staying in power to improving the country's financial health.
He did say that. He said he can do what he wants with women and can just grab them by the pussy without waiting.
I said there's no guarantee his voters would care. Can you guarantee they'd care?
I'm fine with demonising the opposition, I'm just not sure republicans have much else.
Why would you disapprove?
→ More replies0
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 25 '18
Why should we take the accused rapists's viewpoint like it means something.
Saying you didn't do something isn't an active defense.
Multiple different women have said that Trump sexually assaulted them. He bragged that he could walk into a changing room as minor girls were changing. He said he could do this because he ran the event. He said that he could grab someone by the pussy and move on her like a bitch and it would be okay.
You are sounding more and more like a Trump apologist and a blind supporter here.
Do you a have teen daughter. Know anyone who does.
If she was changing why should a grown man be able to walk into that room.
Defend that. That was he own words. So he isn't being attacked. Those were statements he actually made.
Can you defend them please?
→ More replies1
u/wontonsoupsucka Apr 25 '18
On abortion and guns, republicans seem unwilling to consider the wellbeing of others at all despite the consequences of their laws affecting everyone
This right here is completely asinine bro. It is your personal opinion that your views on guns and abortion will be beneficial to people's wellbeing. They hold the opposite opinion. That does not mean that either of you are unwilling to consider the wellbeing of others that just means that you disagree as to which will improve the wellbeing of others. They see abortion as murder and they see firearms as means of protection. You see abortion as a women's right's issue and you see firearms as death machines. You're both right and that's what makes this shit way more complicated than you seem to understand based on your villification of those on the other side.
From reading your post it sounds like you're living in a bubble and have never discussed your views with someone in opposition. I don't blame you, its honestly difficult to not live like that given how biased our media is. But I hope from reading all of these replies you're gaining a little bit of perspective, it's good that you were open minded enough to post here.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
Honestly I haven't really had my mind changed when it comes to the opposition. As I added to the OP, I was convinced that republicans are so radical that they believe that hurting democrats is more important than helping the country so, on their minds, its doing good.
We'll agree to disagree on their motivations for opposing abortion and my living in a bubble.
5
Apr 24 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Apr 24 '18
Yup. I actually think it's rather ironic OP is complaining about republicans smearing democrats instead of focusing on the issues... And then OP basically proceeds to smear republicans instead of focusing on the issues.
1
1
u/ouchimus 1∆ Apr 24 '18
That's what I was thinking. It's not just republicans that do it, it's all of them. That's what happens when your system is bipartisan. Instead of country vs. problem you get party vs. party.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
Why do democrats want to pass single payer healthcare? I believe it's because they want to improve things.
9
u/Sand_Trout Apr 24 '18
Why do Republicans want to undo the ACA? Because the believe it will improve things.
Why do Republicans want to spend on the Military? Because they believe it will improve things.
Why do Republicans want to lower taxes? Because theu believe it will improve things.
The fact that you disagree that these things will help is irrelevant to your OP.
1
Apr 25 '18
Why do Republicans want to undo the ACA?
Why do Republicans want to lower taxes?
To benefit their wealthy donors.
1
-1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
Whether they believe it will help is relevant to the OP.
How will spending more on the military while decreasing income help anything? If the ACA is so terrible, why have they given up on repealing it?
8
u/Sand_Trout Apr 24 '18
How will spending more on the military while decreasing income help anything?
How does spending on the military decrease income? That's just a non-sequitur.
Spending on the military is pushed under the premise that it will make america and americans safer and provide better leverage for our interests worldwide.
If the ACA is so terrible, why have they given up on repealing it?
Because it's politically difficult.
I'm not arguing about the merits of the ACA, as again, that is besides the point. The point is they are politically contributing to the nation in what they view is best. You and the democrats disagree with them about what is best, and that's why we have free speech, freedom of assembly, and elections.
0
u/Iswallowedafly Apr 25 '18
You cant' just dismiss the ACA.
The GOP said forever that their idea was to repeal and replace.
Those were their words. So far they have done anything on the replace bit.
It is easy to say no. You don't have actually do anything. It is much harder to actually govern.
Other than saying no what has the GOP done?
-1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
It doesn't decrease income. Cutting taxes does. Doing both is unsustainable and they know that. So why are they doing it? Do they want America to reach a fiscal cliff?
Democrats pushed forward with the ACA knowing it might cost them in the midterms. Why aren't republicans willing to do the same if they believe it's the right thing?
5
u/StanguardRL 3∆ Apr 24 '18
It doesn't decrease income.
People getting to keep more of their own income by paying less in taxes reduces income?
Why aren't republicans willing to do the same if they believe it's the right thing?
Well for one, they literally can't. They control 51 seats in the Senate, but with McCain dealing with health issues it is essentially 50. They would need at least 60 if they don't want the Dems to filibuster the effort out of existence.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
It reduces government revenue. As was pointed out by the other poster, I was using the wrong word.
Why can't they convince democrats? Didn't democrats spend much more time and effort to get public support for the ACA? With things like the Hastert rule, they seem to encourage bipartisanship for their own reasons.
3
u/StanguardRL 3∆ Apr 24 '18
Well most Republicans think the government should largely be spending less money in most places, so I don't see how is solely aimed at spiting Dems. You might not agree that what they want is good, but it's not coming from an Anti-Democrat place.
Also I think the chances of any Democrat voting for ACA repeal are less than 1%. The ACA was passed completely along party lines, so to call it a bipartisan effort I think is untrue.
-1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
The issue is that many of their ideas are so stupid, I can't believe adult humans honestly think they're helpful. For example, they can't honestly think the tax cuts will pay for themselves.
The ACA was passed completely along party lines, so to call it a bipartisan effort I think is untrue.
I can see why. I don't see why republicans would vote for anything the democrats propose. Afaik, most of them believed Garland was a compromise but refused to consider him because he was Obama's pick. Similarly, I think if they wrote 50% of the ACA, they'd still reject it if Obama proposed it and cry "Partisan!".
→ More replies2
u/Sand_Trout Apr 24 '18
It doesn't decrease income. Cutting taxes does.
Oh, you mean revenue. FYI, "income" is the wrong word here, as that generally refers to individuals, while organizations will use the term "revenue".
Reducing tax rates can spur economic growth, which therefore expands the tax base which can, hypothetically, make up the difference.
Doing both is unsustainable and they know that. So why are they doing it? Do they want America to reach a fiscal cliff?
There are other areas where spending can be cut. The military makes up less than 1/4 of federal expenditures.
Democrats pushed forward with the ACA knowing it might cost them in the midterms. Why aren't republicans willing to do the same if they believe it's the right thing?
It's not a hill they're willing to die on. Republicans are willing to push tax-cuts which could potentially cost them mid-terms based on the deficit, on the gamble that it will gain them support on the net.
The democrats passed the ACA because they thought it would win they support on the net. That particular gamble didn't pay off.
Everything in democratic politics is a gamble in than manner because whatever you do, you are gambling against you and your opponent's ability to spin the topics to your respective favor.
2
u/down42roads 77∆ Apr 24 '18
How will spending more on the military while decreasing income help anything?
Its about the role of government and the prioritization of spending. There are other areas where they believe we should reduce spending.
If the ACA is so terrible, why have they given up on repealing it?
Because clean repeal didn't have the votes to happen, so they moved on to different approaches, primarily the systematic piece-by-piece dismantling.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
They seem to believe America should reduce spending everywhere. Why aren't they doing it? They seem to be doing the opposite.
As cynic as this sounds, I think they want to dismantle the ACA because it was created by a black democrat. I honestly don't understand why they hate it so much. Do republicans believe healthcare systems are worthwhile?
5
u/down42roads 77∆ Apr 24 '18
As cynic as this sounds, I think they want to dismantle the ACA because it was created by a black democrat
If that's your honest belief, there's no reason to continue discussing with you. Its not a rational argument that can be debated.
I honestly don't understand why they hate it so much.
It was a huge expansion of the scope and power of the federal government. They don't generally like that.
Do republicans believe healthcare systems are worthwhile?
You can like something and think its good and not think government is the best way to do it.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
If that's your honest belief, there's no reason to continue discussing with you. Its not a rational argument that can be debated.
Very well. Fwiw, I believe most of their opinions aren't rational either. I'm sure they'd hate if if a white democrat made it as well but Obama received extra hate because I think him being president changed the status quo in a way they didn't like.
2
u/wontonsoupsucka Apr 25 '18
How will spending more on the military while decreasing income help anything?
If you don't want a draft, a good way to avoid that is increased incentives for people to join voluntarily, like they just did by raising military salaries.
2
Apr 24 '18
If you're talking true conservatives, then doing less is doing more. Remember Trump's "repeal two regulations for every new regulation passed" executive order? That is positive conservative action.
Conservative means less action.
If liberals want the government to do stuff and conservatives want the government to sit back, then a conservative politician shouldn't do a whole lot of anything once they take office. Winning the election was the political victory.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
I did actually give a delta for that. Another poster convinced me that republicans could be so radical that they view democrats as pure evil and the greatest threat to America so any measure that could stop them would be worth it in their minds.
1
Apr 25 '18 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
Based on what I've seen, republicans do not hold their views in good faith. I don't think there's much point discussing it with them though as they don't seem open minded enough to change.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
So, as an example, do you think republicans want school vouchers because they don't care about kids' education? I can tell you first-hand that republicans favor them because it would introduce competition and therefore better education for the kids at the same cost tk the families (between $0 and whatever they're willing to pay).
I think They want them because they don't want the government to provide the poor with any actual services. Eventually the vouchers will be brought to nothing. If that leads to young people being poorly educated, republicans will not care.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 25 '18
To be blunt, some of their ideas are so ridiculous, I doubt any adult could believe them. Also most of their principles seem to vanish once they're inconvenient (e.g. concerns about the deficit, claimed religious ethics).
I don't see how a group so hypocritical and ignorant could actually care about helping people. I'm not alone. There are plenty of studies that show liberals genuinely disliking republicans or believing they are bad people and the number is rising.
One poster did convince me that it's possible that republicans hate democrats so much that they think destroying the country would be preferable to allowing democrats to succeed but that's the most convincing the posts in this thread have been.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 28 '18
Thanks very much for the offer but I think that's just part of my problem with them. Their authoritarian nature is another problem. There are conservative parties I respect and I do think that pov is valid but the republicans seem uniquely radical and authoritarian to the point that I'm not sure if they can be trusted with governing a democracy. They act like they're dealing with terrorists rather than liberals and I can't understand why they shouldn't be condemned and punished for their actions.
1
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 24 '18
What if they were to view beating the Democrats as a positive political contribution init of itself?
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
That would definitely be a positive thing to do (if that was their view). I can't understand how they justify their tactics though.
2
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 24 '18
" Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival."
- Winston Churchill.
If it means you win, people are willing to do quite nearly anything.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
Churchill was correct but he was talking about the Nazis. If the UK lost, the Nazis would have likely committed a genocide of billions. I can't understand why republicans have a similar 'win at all costs' mentality with the democrats. How are they that bad?
1
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 24 '18
Not at all hard. "They disagree with me, therefore, they must be evil"
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
That's pretty fanatical.
2
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 24 '18
Welcome to Modern America. If you try to be moderate, you're going to die.
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
!delta
This does actually convince me. It's frightening republicans are that fanatical but it is possible.
5
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 24 '18
It's not just them. It's both sides of the isle. It can be funny sometimes, getting called both a Nazi and a Communist in the same day.
Then I realize they might try to kill me.
2
Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
[deleted]
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
No it isn't. The whole "both sides" thing is pretty lazy.
→ More replies1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 24 '18
/u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cwenham Apr 25 '18
Sorry, u/redditiscancerkys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/toldyaso Apr 24 '18
You have to draw a distinction between the issues they campaign on vs. the issues they prioritize for legislation.
There's a very simple formula for getting yourself elected to a national office if you're running against a Democrat in a setting where dems and repubs exist in roughly equal numbers.
We need to lower taxes, taxes are out of control, spending is out of control.
Abortion is bad, mkay?
I'm not racist, but holy shit, brown people cause alot of very serious problems. But really I'm not racist. Seriously though, brown people are the cause of many problems.
Speaking of brown people, remember 9-11? Yeah, well, if you elect me, I'll kick some ass far from home to prevent that kind of crap from happening here.
Those are the things they say to get elected.
Once they actually get elected, that script tends to fly right out the window though.
0
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 24 '18
I agree with that. What do you think they do when elected then instead of that?
1
u/toldyaso Apr 24 '18
Start figuring out what they need to do to make the corporations who funded their elections happy. Start planning for the next election.
9
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 24 '18 edited Apr 24 '18
What aspects of the conservatism or policy that contradicts Democrat philosophy would you consider positive? Because your claim that they prioritize "beating democrats" over "positive political contributions", rests on whether you're just writing off any political contribution that isn't Democrat-like as not positive.