Republican Candidates for 2016 Race

[urbandefault]

If you guys are lawyers, remind me to not hire you.

Instead of focusing on one phrase in one paragraph, why not read the whole post and let it settle in before just posting a knee-jerk reaction?

 

[Trekker4747]

If you guys are lawyers, remind me to not hire you.

Instead of focusing on one phrase in one paragraph, why not read the whole post and let it settle in before just posting a knee-jerk reaction?

You opened your statement by saying that "teabagger" was a derogatory term, implying it was a term people lobbied AT the Tea Party movement to insult them. Where in reality they named THEMSELVES that and use it in their own protest signs. So the very first group of words in your argument are false which pretty much negates the entire argument because it's simply building off a false premise.

There's no other way to think about it, look at it or even a reason to read the rest of the paragraph. It starts off false so like a True/False question if any part of it is false then the whole thing is false even if there's truth somewhere in it.

And there's plenty of derogatory terms lobbed at the left, usually terms like "Socialist" and most often "Liberal" and most people embrace those terms. I'll sit here and PROUDLY tell you I'm a Socialist.

So, that aspect of your claims and arguments are false because the Left *are* insulted with "derogatory" terms from the Right, though maybe nothing quite as loaded as a sexual metaphor.

Regardless, at the end of the day the Tea Party movement used the "Teabagger" term about themselves first, apparently without any real knowledge on what the term is taken to mean out of context. So calling them "Teabaggers" isn't an insulting, derogatory use of the term it's simply calling them what they are called. Now, sure, over here we use the term with a wink and they're using it un-ironically but it *is* what they opted to call themselves.

 

[Sector 7]

If you guys are lawyers, remind me to not hire you.

Instead of focusing on one phrase in one paragraph, why not read the whole post and let it settle in before just posting a knee-jerk reaction?

You opened your statement by saying that "teabagger" was a derogatory term, implying it was a term people lobbied AT the Tea Party movement to insult them. Where in reality they named THEMSELVES that and use it in their own protest signs. So the very first group of words in your argument are false which pretty much negates the entire argument because it's simply building off a false premise.

There's no other way to think about it, look at it or even a reason to read the rest of the paragraph. It starts off false so like a True/False question if any part of it is false then the whole thing is false even if there's truth somewhere in it.

And there's plenty of derogatory terms lobbed at the left, usually terms like "Socialist" and most often "Liberal" and most people embrace those terms. I'll sit here and PROUDLY tell you I'm a Socialist.

So, that aspect of your claims and arguments are false because the Left *are* insulted with "derogatory" terms from the Right, though maybe nothing quite as loaded as a sexual metaphor.

Regardless, at the end of the day the Tea Party movement used the "Teabagger" term about themselves first, apparently without any real knowledge on what the term is taken to mean out of context. So calling them "Teabaggers" isn't an insulting, derogatory use of the term it's simply calling them what they are called. Now, sure, over here we use the term with a wink and they're using it un-ironically but it *is* what they opted to call themselves.

Very well said.

 

[fonzob1]

How can their own term for themselves be "derogatory and insulting"?

Just because there are tea party members who used the term, not knowing any better, does not mean it isn't a derogatory term. The Red Mesa high school on a Navajo Indian reservation uses the nickname "Redskins" for their school mascot. Does that fact change whether or not you perceive the nickname "Redskins" as derogatory?

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/will...-high-school-their-redskins-mascot-is-racist/

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If you guys are lawyers, remind me to not hire you.

Instead of focusing on one phrase in one paragraph, why not read the whole post and let it settle in before just posting a knee-jerk reaction?

Oh, sorry, I'll comment on the rest of what you said, then.

You called for respect. Conservatives get none from me, nor will they ever. One need only look at the hateful, destructive assholes currently serving in the US Congress with "R"s after their names to see why. Those people didn't get into government by accident--conservatives voted them in. If Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, et al represent the best of what the GOP has to offer, that speaks for itself.

How can their own term for themselves be "derogatory and insulting"?

Just because there are tea party members who used the term, not knowing any better, does not mean it isn't a derogatory term. The Red Mesa high school on a Navajo Indian reservation uses the nickname "Redskins" for their school mascot. Does that fact change whether or not you perceive the nickname "Redskins" as derogatory?

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/will...-high-school-their-redskins-mascot-is-racist/

Call me when "teabagger" is a racial slur. There's a world of difference between poking fun at people's ignorance and referring to them via slurs with lots of nasty historical baggage.

 

[fonzob1]

Call me when "teabagger" is a racial slur. There's a world of difference between poking fun at people's ignorance and referring to them via slurs with lots of nasty historical baggage.

You may percieve one term as being more offensive than another, but the reasoning remains the same. It doesn't change the fact that "teabagger" is still a derogatory term.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Call me when "teabagger" is a racial slur. There's a world of difference between poking fun at people's ignorance and referring to them via slurs with lots of nasty historical baggage.

You may percieve one term as being more offensive than another, but the reasoning remains the same. It doesn't change the fact that "teabagger" is still a derogatory term.

So is "liberal," according to conservatives. And yet, nobody whines about that.

Falsely proclaiming victimhood is conservatism's stock-in-trade, of course.

 

[fonzob1]

Call me when "teabagger" is a racial slur. There's a world of difference between poking fun at people's ignorance and referring to them via slurs with lots of nasty historical baggage.

You may percieve one term as being more offensive than another, but the reasoning remains the same. It doesn't change the fact that "teabagger" is still a derogatory term.

So is "liberal," according to conservatives. And yet, nobody whines about that.

Falsely proclaiming victimhood is conservatism's stock-in-trade, of course.

I agree there is plenty of "name-calling" to go around.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Re: Above posts with pics of sign carrying idiots ...

Anecdotal evidence at best. Those examples do not represent the vast majority of conservative voters. And that wasn't even the point of my post. Way to fall in line, though. Kudos.

Anecdotal evidence is only a poor choice of evidence to support a generalized claim. No one was making a generalized claim here besides you with your whining about hate speech. Our contention was simply that the Tea Party used "tea bag" as a verb and referred to themselves as "teabaggers" in a glorious own-goal to rebut your false victimization routine about hate speech being used against conservatives, in which case specific anecdotal evidence like examples of Tea Partiers carrying signs is perfectly acceptable. I'd also add that I provided three links which demonstrate multiple examples of conservatives not only calling themselves Teabaggers but finally waking up to the fact about what it meant and desperately scrambling about how to respond.

What was the point of your post? Most of the time when you comment on anything political it seems like the point of your post is to make an unsupported claim and then end the post by saying "That's all I have to say about that" or the equivalent of "And if you don't like, tough, I don't care" as if you don't expect anyone to respond or rebut your post. What usually follows is everyone else easily disassembling your baseless or paper thin arguments and then you —despite always declaring that you're done with the conversation you just started and remarking about how much you don't care— repeatedly coming back to make lame one-liners and get in the last word, showing that you actually do care about what other people say. Your posts are such a caricature you might as well just type "LAST WORD!!!" in all-caps any time someone responds to you.

I don't care if someone calls me or anyone else names. Sticks and stones. You can't hurt me if I don't let you. That's all insecurity on the part of the name-caller.

You cared enough that you brought up a six-year-old issue no one else has even thought about in the intervening time just so you could whine about it and say how the mean liberals mocked the poor innocent racist, homophobic, misogynistic, corporate sellout, violent, ignorant, and damaging to the GOP and the country Tea Party movement for hilariously unknowingly co-opting gay slang because they were too stupid to use Google first. You cared enough to actually have the nerve to compare it to hate speech in a case of delusion so grand it rivals Don Quixote fighting windmills.

I don't expect anyone to believe it, but it's the truth.

LAST WORD!!!

I make it sound like I'm going to end it here, because I don't care, but wait, I have another clever drive-by quip I can get in about how you guys would make terrible lawyers!

 

[horatio83]

A few thoughts:

The left of center populace, like the Republican National Committee, does not understand the conservative voter. Regular everyday conservatives want small government, low taxes, fair immigration laws balanced with tight border security, truth in sentencing, and the list could go on for pages.

"Teabagger" is a derogatory and insulting term that, if reversed toward the left, would be called hate speech and cries for justice would be all over the airwaves, not to mention this BBS. But you won't see it happen. Regular everyday conservatives don't care what names they're called, and respect others enough to not throw that crap back.

This early field of GOP candidates will dwindle quickly once things get rolling.

Party politics has become a game of "your turn, my turn" and the difference between the two is negligible. It doesn't matter which party is in the majority in Congress if they both push the same agenda. The Congressional leadership has been in place far too long, on both sides. It's time for new blood.

I don't want another Bush in the White House. I don't want another Clinton in the White House. No royal families here, please. We had enough of that with the Kennedys.

And that's all I have to say about that.

First of all, given that I am a social democrat and you a right-winger I obviously do not agree with your ridiculous notion that the Republican National Committee is in any way left of the center. Even the Democratic Party, as well as any other post Third Way social democratic party, is, at least in terms of economic policy, center-right.

Totally agree though about your points concerning pseudo-aristocracy and party collusion. Liberals who judge Clinton on her Sander-esque campaign instead of the stuff she actually did while she was in power are the same as right-wing climate change deniers: people who are disconnected from reality.

Both parties are basically playing the social issues game (abortion, same-sex marriage and so on matter but LESS than climate change, income inequality and the ensuing decline of democracy) to deflect from the fact that they are both corporate parties, marionettes of oligarchs.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The left of center populace, like the Republican National Committee, does not understand the conservative voter. [...]

First of all, given that I am a social democrat and you a right-winger I obviously do not agree with your ridiculous notion that the Republican National Committee is in any way left of the center. Even the Democratic Party, as well as any other post Third Way social democratic party, is, at least in terms of economic policy, center-right.

I found that to be an eyebrow-raising passage in urbandefault's post. However, that passage can be read as asserting two things: that the RNC does not understand the conservative voter and that that part of the populace that is left of center does not understand the conservative voter. Furthermore, that passage can be read as asserting both of those things without asserting either that the RNC is part of the left of center populace or even that the populace at large is generally left of center, even though some people might write such a passage intending to assert all of those things. So, since a reasonable interpretation was available, I didn't comment on it before. I literally did raise my eyebrows, though.

 

[suarezguy]

The left of center populace, like the Republican National Committee, does not understand the conservative voter. Regular everyday conservatives want small government, low taxes, fair immigration laws balanced with tight border security, truth in sentencing, and the list could go on for pages.

Unfortunately, it's very hard to determine how many people hold those views, let alone hold them strong enough to determine their votes. It's likely that most people want lower taxes, more government spending and less government debt although hopefully more of the voters aren't so hypocritical.

"Teabagger" is a derogatory and insulting term that, if reversed toward the left, would be called hate speech and cries for justice would be all over the airwaves, not to mention this BBS. But you won't see it happen. Regular everyday conservatives don't care what names they're called, and respect others enough to not throw that crap back.

Eh, we are all Teabaggers, we are all Fleabaggers. It'd be nice if we engaged ideas rather than flung insults but there's also a place for humor if it is acknowledged as such.

Party politics has become a game of "your turn, my turn" and the difference between the two is negligible. It doesn't matter which party is in the majority in Congress if they both push the same agenda.

I think that's unfair, the parties do, especially with the Tea faction influence on the right, stand and push for pretty different things. Pelosi and Boehner particularly have very different agendas.

I don't want another Bush in the White House. I don't want another Clinton in the White House. No royal families here, please.

I agree but their frontrunner status allows them to act as centrist and their competitors (aside from Webb and Chaffee) tried to appeal to non-centrists so it's hard for the rivals to actually seem more reasonable or electable.

Both parties are basically playing the social issues game (abortion, same-sex marriage and so on matter but LESS than climate change, income inequality and the ensuing decline of democracy) to deflect from the fact that they are both corporate parties, marionettes of oligarchs.

Do you have solutions for how to mitigate climate change or corporate election spending?

 

[MacLeod]

Well the first step in any attempt to mitigate climate change, is to first accept that humans have had/are having an impact on the global climate.

The second step is to accept that climate change doesn't mean every will get impacted the same such as bring a snowball into the senate.

Then build new cleaner power stations, not to mention wind farms, solar farms, tidal power, hydro power etc...

Not to mention more using more efficent light bulbs, more efficent motor enginges etc...

Solutions are easier to come by than political will. Same goes for coporate election spending, those that draft the laws often don't want to do things that will impact on any monies they recieve from coporations.

 

[horatio83]

Do you have solutions for how to mitigate climate change or corporate election spending?

Depends on what you mean by solution.

From a technical-normative perspective it is simple.
You reign in corporate spending via undoing stuff like Citizens United in the US and in general re-creating firewalls between the public and the private sector. You tax the shit out of big business and in the case of banks you seperate commerical and investment banking and implement capital requirements of around 25% (Admati&Hellwig - The Bankers' Bew Clothes).

You deal with climate change via implementing a worldwide CO2 tax (while reducing income tax rates at the same time), creating a worldwide subsidy system for reforestation and doing massive public investment programs into green energy (this doesn't just make sense from an environmental but also from an economic perspective as we still have a global savings glut / investment dearth).

All this is obviously far from being politically feasible so from a political perspective there is in my opinion only one solution: democratic pressure from below. Years and decades of such pressure did e.g. lead to stuff like the New Deal in the US.
The other option is obviously political violence. I am not per se opposed to that , if you connected an auto battery to the balls of Charles Koch I wouldn't call Amnesty and I certainly cannot stand complacent protesters who feel sooo good about themselves because they protested for something but totally ignore that nothing changed in reality.
But as violent left-wing revolutions have either not consolidated (Jacobins) or led to totalitarian horrors (Stalinism) I am also quite sceptical about this path.

 

[1001001]

Good ol' Chris Christie....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...358c2c-39de-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

And say goodbye to any hope of the Presidency....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/chris-christie-enforce-marijuana-illegal-2016-120769.html

Whatever.

 

[fonzob1]

Christie already had baggage. He was always a longshot.

And, it looks like Trump will not participate in the debates afterall.

 

[1001001]

Christie already had baggage. He was always a longshot.

Well, sure.

I do enjoy seeing those "limited government/states rights" Republicans make threats like that though. How unbelievably expensive and pointless that endeavor would be...

 

[fonzob1]

I do enjoy seeing those "limited government/states rights" Republicans make threats like that though.

I wouldn't classify Christie as a "limited government" Republican. Someone who does tyrannical things like creating a traffic jam because someone refused to endorse him (which I understand he denies) isn't going to fit that description. Claiming that you would push illegalizing all use of marijuana, at the federal level, does not support that claim either.

 

[1001001]

That's kind of the point, though.

As was described before, they all claim to be small government, but they're not. They just want use the power of the federal government to enrich their corporate masters and/or make Jesus happy.

Instead of, you know, helping people with pesky socialist ideas like roads, schools, clean drinking water, affordable health care...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Even New Jerseyans don't like Christie anymore. He's done.