Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Agreed. Its dumber than the American Flag pin that they all wear (made in China). Like that makes you more Patriotic. There is nothing that will make me think guys like Ted Cruz or Rubio are more Patriotic than McCain or Kerry or other guys who served. Serving in the military isn't the only way to serve the country and be patriotic. And a lot of the motivations for many people who join the military are hardly patriotic. By your standard for patriotism, you would argue Obama is less patriotic because he never served in the military. I don't believe that for a second. Public service in political office is patriotic. Public service of any kind is patriotic. To me the teacher who teaches in an under-priveleged school system or the public defender that defends the poor because they want to make a difference are as patriotic as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Oh, they could. Well, maybe not "win the black vote", but at least make it a whole lot less of a guaranteed Dem 95% vote. Just stop demonizing them and openly courting the racist vote. But it would cost them in the short run. (Because they need the racist vote.) And it wouldn't loosen the Dem's control for decades. I'm going to try to tread this one carefully... It's not that simple. They not only have to reconsider what they're doing, they also have to fight the democrats. The democrats have a big interest in the GOP image remaining one that involves racism, even if it's just hinting at it. It helps them, it makes their job easier. The worst thing that could ever happen to the democrats is that the GOP stops having image issues with women, blacks/affrican americans, and latinos. That could potentially spell doom for the democrats. There are quality black conservatives that have the qualifications to lead the party, Rice is probably the one most often mentioned but there are others. They have all chosen not to even venture down that path. I imagine part of the reason is because they're too smart to wast their time with the general nastiness of politics, most of these people are well accomplished and don't have to do it. I also assume part of it is that they don't want to deal with being called a token black person. Or whatever other various things come out of generally-left leaning people (the same people who love to tell everyone else how racist they are.) The GOP needs to put extra effort into finding women and black leaders because whoever they try to put up there is going to start with a significant disadvantage - a lot of people are going to assume from the start that the only reason those people are up there is because they are a female and/or black and the GOP is trying to change their image. It doesn't help that the GOP jumped behind Cain and Palin so quickly... One day they'll get past it. It's going to be nasty and unfortunate to watch though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 And in VA, it was Democrats in the legislature and Chuck Robb as Governor who forced MLK day into the merger with Lee-Jackson day, and it was a Republican Governor who split them apart finally. Just out of curiosity, you got the actual vote totals on those votes? Cause I've seen a whole lot of cases where some people claim that "Party X did Action Y", when the facts are exactly the opposite. (Which political party created DHS, and which one prevented Obamacare from containing single payer come to mind.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Oh, they could. Well, maybe not "win the black vote", but at least make it a whole lot less of a guaranteed Dem 95% vote. Just stop demonizing them and openly courting the racist vote. But it would cost them in the short run. (Because they need the racist vote.) And it wouldn't loosen the Dem's control for decades. I think the racist vote is going to get more tenacious as the power of the white demographic continues to wane. It has and will continue to have disproportionate influence in the electorate because it's organized and been a part of the political process for generations. They are reliable Republican voters. Racism in society as a whole is declining with each successive generation. But young people, low income people, and minorities don't reliably vote. Young, urban white people is where you'll really find the place where white supremacist attitudes are declining and they don't participate in the political process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm going to try to tread this one carefully... It's not that simple. They not only have to reconsider what they're doing, they also have to fight the democrats. The democrats have a big interest in the GOP image remaining one that involves racism, even if it's just hinting at it. It helps them, it makes their job easier. The worst thing that could ever happen to the democrats is that the GOP stops having image issues with women, blacks/affrican americans, and latinos. That could potentially spell doom for the democrats. While I will certainly agree that it's to the Dem's advantage to paint the GOP as anti-black, I will also observe that their job would be a whole lot harder if, say, GOP politicians would stop announcing that the only discrimination that exists in America is against white, male, Christians, and that we need to make racial discrimination legal, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Just out of curiosity, you got the actual vote totals on those votes? Cause I've seen a whole lot of cases where some people claim that "Party X did Action Y", when the facts are exactly the opposite. (Which political party created DHS, and which one prevented Obamacare from containing single payer come to mind.) No, just that the Dems controlled both houses of the legislature by wide margins and the Governor was a Dem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 tshile, the GoP winning new black constituencies is not a matter of finding acceptable black candidates for visible national offices. The GoP has no party infrastructure whatsoever in your average black community. Those communities are complete organized by Democrats. Probably even more so than rural white communities are organized by Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 i know a life long democrat that voted republican for the first time in 2008. and 2010, 2012, and 2014. because obama is black. this idea that racists are just republicans is kind of a joke in my eyes. yes, that's where they're going right now because the democrat's leader is a black guy and they don't like that. but i have a feeling the racist i know is going to vote for the democrats in 2016 unless they find another black person to run. that person won't be any less racist, and he'll be supporting the democrats again. that's my personal story on the issue of racists being republicans, i hope you enjoyed it. it's not really worth anything. (I think i covered all the bases here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Serving in the military isn't the only way to serve the country and be patriotic. And a lot of the motivations for many people who join the military are hardly patriotic. By your standard for patriotism, you would argue Obama is less patriotic because he never served in the military. I don't believe that for a second. Public service in political office is patriotic. Public service of any kind is patriotic. To me the teacher who teaches in an under-priveleged school system or the public defender that defends the poor because they want to make a difference are as patriotic as anyone. Totally fair. You're right. My point is that the people who question Patriotism often (not always) are the ones who think they count as provide public service because they get a nice paycheck to be an Congressman or Senator while wrapping themselves in the flag. I was too vague there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 While I will certainly agree that it's to the Dem's advantage to paint the GOP as anti-black, I will also observe that their job would be a whole lot harder if, say, GOP politicians would stop announcing that the only discrimination that exists in America is against white, male, Christians, and that we need to make racial discrimination legal, again. You're absolutely right. But on some level this is a straw man you build quite often. You did it with me the other day. It seems like anytime someone suggests the pendulum may swing too far in the other direction (in terms of laws being written/proposed) you turn it into "LOL you think the only victims of racism/sexism are whites/men, LOL you're so stupid" even when it's crystal clear they weren't saying that. Which, is my point. The GOP has to work diligently to fix this problem. It's more than just saying the right things, they have to fight through a group of people that are going to condemn them for being racist/sexist even when they're not acting that way and there are going to be a lot of people that believe it regardless of its truthfulness. To date they're doing a terrible job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm going to try to tread this one carefully... It's not that simple. They not only have to reconsider what they're doing, they also have to fight the democrats. The democrats have a big interest in the GOP image remaining one that involves racism, even if it's just hinting at it. It helps them, it makes their job easier. The worst thing that could ever happen to the democrats is that the GOP stops having image issues with women, blacks/affrican americans, and latinos. That could potentially spell doom for the democrats. Which is why it would be a good idea symbolically for them to be represented. Really this is only about symbolism. That would change this from a minor story and another slight by the GOP against African Americans to a non story. The fact that none can be bothered to support this event, but continue to engage in things that are perceived to be anti-black continues to foster or build the narrative. When you look at conservative party rhetoric and especially Tea Party rhetoric... and more than that action the image that the Republican party is still anti-minority is hard to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I guess the question is, what looks worse? Some GOP Leadership showing up for this and people saying its all for show. Or not showing up at all? The GOP isn't trying to come off racist. I believe that. Sadly they do a worse job hiding their nutbag racists than the Dems do of it. Which is why it would be a good idea symbolically for them to be represented. Really this is only about symbolism. That would change this from a minor story and another slight by the GOP against African Americans to a non story. The fact that none can be bothered to support this event, but continue to engage in things that are perceived to be anti-black continues to foster or build the narrative. When you look at conservative party rhetoric and especially Tea Party rhetoric... and more than that action the image that the Republican party is still anti-minority is hard to fight. Well, if you look at Boehner's twitter feed. He's been 90% about Benghazi the past few days. Others are about the ACA still. So, it doesn't rank high on their to-do list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 6, 2015 Author Share Posted March 6, 2015 I guess the question is, what looks worse? Some GOP Leadership showing up for this and people saying its all for show. Or not showing up at all? The GOP isn't trying to come off racist. I believe that. Sadly they do a worse job hiding their nutbag racists than the Dems do of it. Not showing up at all is worst. If they show it is a non story. The worst that could happen is someone catches them on camera yawning and tease them about it in the same way they tease Obama during one of his speeches when one of the people behind him yawn or drunkenly fall asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Totally fair. You're right. My point is that the people who question Patriotism often (not always) are the ones who think they count as provide public service because they get a nice paycheck to be an Congressman or Senator while wrapping themselves in the flag. I was too vague there. I get what you mean. And I wasn't trying to give you a straw man argument either, I knew you didn't mean the position I argued against in that post. I think it's a problem when you have any prominent members of your party publicly questions another's patriotism. It's almost like questioning another's piety or religiosity. It's a really unclassy move, and you're right, there's been a lot of that going on in the GoP and it goes back decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Well, if you look at Boehner's twitter feed. He's been 90% about Benghazi the past few days. Others are about the ACA still. So, it doesn't rank high on their to-do list. Hehe, right now they're all going nuts about clintonemail.com which is quite a funny story to watch This may make a presidential run impossible for her. If they find out she destroyed all her SoS emails that may prove to be something she can't overcome. Likewise, seizing her SoS emails very well may mean getting a lot of personal emails, and that may create its own problem... She's in a tough spot. Of course, if she would have just followed the rules to start with she wouldn't be in this situation... i'd be curious what a security audit reveals... what she did was wrong and dangerous, though I don't expect anyone to care. security is something we like to say we care about, but ultimately most don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Hehe, right now they're all going nuts about clintonemail.com which is quite a funny story to watch This may make a presidential run impossible for her. If they find out she destroyed all her SoS emails that may prove to be something she can't overcome. Likewise, seizing her SoS emails very well may mean getting a lot of personal emails, and that may create its own problem... She's in a tough spot. Of course, if she would have just followed the rules to start with she wouldn't be in this situation... I don't think it's going to hurt her. She has no challenger in her party. All of the money is going to go to her. If there was another big name out there this controversy might scare some of the money in their direction but there isn't. Right now she is about as good a lock as you're going to find for a party nomination two years out. Something really unexpected would have to happen to produce a real challenger. Her people didn't handle this well though. This and the Clinton Foundation donation controversy demonstrate that she needs a formal campaign structure to handle things like this. Running her own email server in her house is weird and plays into the narrative of the Clinton air of secrecy. The GoP won't be able to use it as a club against her if they back Jeb Bush though, because he did the same thing when he was governor. That transparency matters tweet from him was silly given that. Anyway, I heard on NPR that it's not all that uncommon for politicians to host their own email servers. Supposedly the upside is increased privacy--if anyone wants to subpoena your emails they have to come to you instead of going around you to google or whoever. But there is a potential security problem in that it's unlikely your living room email server is as well secured as a big professional operation. Then again the State Department has had their email servers hacked in the past too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I don't think it's going to hurt her. She has no challenger in her party. All of the money is going to go to her. If there was another big name out there this controversy might scare some of the money in their direction but there isn't. Right now she is about as good a lock as you're going to find for a party nomination two years out. Something really unexpected would have to happen to produce a real challenger. This was exactly what they said in the lead up to 2008. Then a senator from Illinois came out of nowhere... Her people didn't handle this well though. This and the Clinton Foundation donation controversy demonstrate that she needs a formal campaign structure to handle things like this. Running her own email server in her house is weird and plays into the narrative of the Clinton air of secrecy. The GoP won't be able to use it as a club against her if they back Jeb Bush though, because he did the same thing when he was governor. That transparency matters tweet from him was silly given that. Anyway, I heard on NPR that it's not all that uncommon for politicians to host their own email servers. Supposedly the upside is increased privacy--if anyone wants to subpoena your emails they have to come to you instead of going around you to google or whoever. But there is a potential security problem in that it's unlikely your living room email server is as well secured as a big professional operation. Then again the State Department has had their email servers hacked in the past too. I don't get the foundation donation issue. I saw the headlines but never followed it. I don't agree with you on the email issue. Secretary of state and governor are two totally different positions. It's outright dangerous that she outsourced her official email that way. The only way it would not be dangerous is if she hired a well regarded security team to setup and maintain the system, but I don't think she did that. If Jeb Bush has a history of denying access to those emails and hiding things that way, then you'd have a point in that regard. But i'm not aware of that (I don't know a lot about Jeb Bush, partly because I'm assuming his last name will prevent him from making a meaningful run so i haven't invested the time) By the way - at many companies, this is a fire-able offense. Companies with less to hide/protect than the secretary of state... What she did was reckless and dangerous to our country. (Unless she hired a good security team to setup/oversee it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Obama didn't come out nowhere and I'm not sure why people here keep saying that. He gave the keynote address in 2004 at the DNC. Unlike Clinton in 1988, he didn't bore everyone to death and O really scored big time politically with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 it is a fire-able offense at State as well. a junior senator that hadn't even served a full term is pretty much out of nowhere.....it would be similar to Cruz winning(but even he had more experience) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I don't like how missing an event (funeral, celebration etc) is becoming a political gotcha. agreed.. i don;t see much "there" here... but it certainly is the sort of thing i would think politicians would be all over attending, particularly Scalise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 it is a fire-able offense at State as well. a junior senator that hadn't even served a full term is pretty much out of nowhere.....it would be similar to Cruz winning(but even he had more experience) At the time, Obama was a well known political up and comer. Many thought he was 4 years to early..but it wasn't out of nowhere. As for the Clinton emails - a really really stupid move by her. Not sure why she thought she could ever get away with it. As for the original post content - this seemed like a perfect time for the GOP PTB to have attended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 It is already hurting her. And will going forward. How much though is the issue. Even worse today is that while she was at State, they FIRED an ambassador for keeping his own email and not using Government issued. And it also came out that she communicated via IM in some situations. It plays into the narrative that she thinks the rules don't apply to her and that she is always hiding something. It's a long way to Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Obama didn't come out nowhere and I'm not sure why people here keep saying that. He gave the keynote address in 2004 at the DNC. Unlike Clinton in 1988, he didn't bore everyone to death and O really scored big time politically with it. Agreed. He was a star in the party following that speech. There's no equivalent in the party right now. Warren has good brand appeal on the left but I have my doubts that she'll even run. And honestly, she's not the political operative that Hilary is. A woman challenging another strong woman candidate is a tough sell, I think women will unite behind Hillary. Julian Castro is another name that springs to mind for me. I think he's an interesting politician and potential candidate, but he's not Obama and his brand is way too nascent for 2016 IMO. Who is going to give him money over Hillary? I do think he's got a future on the national stage though. He comes off as very likable and charismatic, really the key assets in national politics and two assets that Hillary lacks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'd give him money might be f un for him and Cruz to run against each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'd give him money might be f un for him and Cruz to run against each other I don't think you're quite the base he'd be needing to court. Although say a Texas Democrat like him runs against a Republican from Florida or New Jersey. What's his chance of winning Texas? Or another question, how useful could he be in the electoral math as a VP candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.