What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

GOP Censures Cheney and Kinzinger - thoughts? (1 Viewer)

joffer said:
wow, AOC isn’t a fan of Sinema?  I didn’t know that.  Thanks scoop.

the false equivalency going on is astounding.  When the “squad” is setting the Dems legislative agenda, LMK.
Click to expand...
The Squad has no say in policy?  Interesting.  

 
FairWarning said:
And I am not sticking up for anything 1/6.  It’s just very convenient for the left to hang on 1/6 while the country goes ti heck.   
Click to expand...
It was kind of a big deal.  Way bigger than Benghazi, and that one had 10 investigations with the last one wrapping up in 2016 (4 years after the event).

So I would say we are just at the beginning stages of 1/6.

 
sho nuff said:
I think Trump is an extreme and the actions of the party show he still controls things. What is the equivalent on the left?
Click to expand...
In what ways do you think Trump promotes or represents the “extreme right.”?  I mean that as a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure I see him as ideologically extreme in the way that I see some of the Dems in the House as ideologically extreme. 

 
bigbottom said:
In what ways do you think Trump promotes or represents the “extreme right.”?  I mean that as a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure I see him as ideologically extreme in the way that I see some of the Dems in the House as ideologically extreme. 
Click to expand...
Pushing power extremes more than anything.

Cutting legal immigration was pretty extreme.   
Trade…though oddly an traditionally more left extreme against free trade. 
 

 
bigbottom said:
In what ways do you think Trump promotes or represents the “extreme right.”?  I mean that as a question, not a challenge. I’m not sure I see him as ideologically extreme in the way that I see some of the Dems in the House as ideologically extreme. 
Click to expand...
maybe it’s me, but promoting the previous election was “stolen” seems extreme.

 
joffer said:
maybe it’s me, but promoting the previous election was “stolen” seems extreme.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s extreme. And I think Trump is wholly objectionable for a myriad of reasons. But I’m not sure it’s because he is “extreme right” at least in any traditional ideological sense. He’s an agent of chaos though, no doubt. 

 
bigbottom said:
Yes, it’s extreme. And I think Trump is wholly objectionable for a myriad of reasons. But I’m not sure it’s because he is “extreme right” at least in any traditional ideological sense. He’s an agent of chaos though, no doubt. 
Click to expand...
Im not sure he is extreme “right”. But definitely extreme…and I think the party follows along.

 
sho nuff said:
Pushing power extremes more than anything.

Cutting legal immigration was pretty extreme.   
Trade…though oddly an traditionally more left extreme against free trade. 
 
Click to expand...
Fair. I guess maybe a better way to ask the question is what are the ideological views of the “extreme right” on key political issues, and in what way does Trump emulate or represent those views?  Immigration is a good example. 

 
bigbottom said:
Fair. I guess maybe a better way to ask the question is what are the ideological views of the “extreme right” on key political issues, and in what way does Trump emulate or represent those views?  Immigration is a good example. 
Click to expand...
Ill get back to this when I can put a bit more thought to it.

 
bigbottom said:
Fair. I guess maybe a better way to ask the question is what are the ideological views of the “extreme right” on key political issues, and in what way does Trump emulate or represent those views?  Immigration is a good example. 
Click to expand...
a great question.  Strictly speaking his views on the political spectrum are tough to categorize.  He’s a narcissistic sociopath, so trying to gauge what he thinks about gun control, climate change, voting rights, etc. is difficult on any given day.  I would argue it’s pointless, because without public faith in elections, the rest doesn’t mean anything.

however, to use your example, I would consider a physical wall on our border “extreme”, especially considering how close we were not too long ago (2013) on comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform.

 
joffer said:
maybe it’s me, but promoting the previous election was “stolen” seems extreme.
Click to expand...
To be fair… between the Obama birther stuff and the claim that millions of illegal immigrants were allowed to vote for Hillary Clinton, Trump has promoted that the last four Presidential election results weren’t legitimate.  It’s a big part of his political brand and a main contributor to his ascent through the Republican Party.

 
Joe Bryant said:
If I understood the request, it's nothing to do with not letting people discuss things. It's do we need multiple threads covering mostly the same topic. That's just general good practice for forums. And we do that everywhere. Especially in the Shark Pool forums on NFL talk. Just makes for a better forum. 
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, I’d like to offer a suggestion… instead of you starting a separate topic every time a liberal woman your conservative friends love to hate says something that your conservative friends don’t like, have one master topic tracking all that behavior.  
 

Can avoid injecting discussion of that objectionable behavior into other existing topics that aren’t good fits, might work as a distraction topic to keep the people just looking to agitate out of topics were more substantive discussion is taking place, and you won’t have to pretend you had a random thought about a general idea when what you really wanted to do was criticize Jen Psaki.  

I’m sure you can come up with a catchier title than “Liberal Women Who Create Conservative Outrage”, but once you do, it would streamline discussion much better than when you start a new topic because Bette Midler tweeted something that got picked up by Fox News.

 
greenmountaingoat said:
I appreciate your seemingly honest take.

 I’m curious about what you mean by this though. What policy goals supersede right to free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power? I’m not trying to tamp down your thinking through sarcasm, I’m genuinely curious.

If you think the election was stolen I’m fine with not carrying on a farcical exercise of going down that road.  
Click to expand...
You said party over country.  

I’m still ok with my take there. I think it’s that they are the same because I believe the Republican Party represents what’s best for this country.

On the voting, I happen to agree with the Republican Party. You should have the right to vote, but it shouldn’t have to come to you. You wanna vote, prove you are who you say you are, and go vote. The left’s take on this I find offensive. 

January 6th - j personally do not think the election was stolen, and I also personally think January 6th was terrible. 

But here’s my take - while I do not personally believe the election was stolen, let’s say you were one of those who actually believed that it was - you would consider the stealing of a presidential election to be an extremely serious act. If enough people felt that way, and they do/did, they might act on it. And they did. Not defending, but I understand. 

And keep in mind this was on the heels of the summer of riots in which the right, myself included in this one, felt rioters were basically given a free pass to loot, burn, etc.. by the left. 
January 6th was a direct result of what the right witnessed across America. Again, I don’t condone it, but I definitely understand it. 

 
T J said:
You said party over country.  

I’m still ok with my take there. I think it’s that they are the same because I believe the Republican Party represents what’s best for this country.

On the voting, I happen to agree with the Republican Party. You should have the right to vote, but it shouldn’t have to come to you. You wanna vote, prove you are who you say you are, and go vote. The left’s take on this I find offensive. 

January 6th - j personally do not think the election was stolen, and I also personally think January 6th was terrible. 

But here’s my take - while I do not personally believe the election was stolen, let’s say you were one of those who actually believed that it was - you would consider the stealing of a presidential election to be an extremely serious act. If enough people felt that way, and they do/did, they might act on it. And they did. Not defending, but I understand. 

And keep in mind this was on the heels of the summer of riots in which the right, myself included in this one, felt rioters were basically given a free pass to loot, burn, etc.. by the left. 
January 6th was a direct result of what the right witnessed across America. Again, I don’t condone it, but I definitely understand it. 
Click to expand...
I don’t think the election was stolen.  I do think the R’s were outworked and outhustled  - Trump did this in 2016..  how much of the cabal’s antics were legal?  We can debate that all day. 

 
bigbottom said:
Fair. I guess maybe a better way to ask the question is what are the ideological views of the “extreme right” on key political issues, and in what way does Trump emulate or represent those views?  Immigration is a good example. 
Click to expand...
His apparent views and support of white Christian Nationalism is what is most bothersome to me .And even if he really does not hold those views himself, he certainly caters to them and has them carry his water

 
Chaz McNulty said:
It was kind of a big deal.  Way bigger than Benghazi, and that one had 10 investigations with the last one wrapping up in 2016 (4 years after the event).

So I would say we are just at the beginning stages of 1/6.
Click to expand...
I’d expect it to ramp up about September and October.  

 
T J said:
You said party over country.  

I’m still ok with my take there. I think it’s that they are the same because I believe the Republican Party represents what’s best for this country.

On the voting, I happen to agree with the Republican Party. You should have the right to vote, but it shouldn’t have to come to you. You wanna vote, prove you are who you say you are, and go vote. The left’s take on this I find offensive. 

January 6th - j personally do not think the election was stolen, and I also personally think January 6th was terrible. 

But here’s my take - while I do not personally believe the election was stolen, let’s say you were one of those who actually believed that it was - you would consider the stealing of a presidential election to be an extremely serious act. If enough people felt that way, and they do/did, they might act on it. And they did. Not defending, but I understand. 

And keep in mind this was on the heels of the summer of riots in which the right, myself included in this one, felt rioters were basically given a free pass to loot, burn, etc.. by the left. 
January 6th was a direct result of what the right witnessed across America. Again, I don’t condone it, but I definitely understand it. 
Click to expand...
A lot of people couldn't believe the results of the 2016 election, one with worse optics than 2020 because Hillary won the popular vote and most of the pollsters had her winning. There was a recount started in 3 states, not by Hillary, but by Jill Stein. There were massive protests by the left, including the huge women's march in DC the day after the inauguration. The biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 are the conspiratorial theories fueled by Trump. That's why so many on the right believe the election was stolen without any real proof. Trump would've been successful at starting a new religion. 

 
joffer said:
but they haven’t.  and can’t.  That’s the point.
Click to expand...
Yet.  

It takes a while for a party to go off the rails.  For the Republicans, I think you can trace this back to a) the Tea Party for making the GOP more populist and b) a willingness to use the primary system to nominate the most extreme candidates possible.  These two things may be closely related but I'm not sure about that, and what matters is that both of these happened, not whether one caused the other.  

The result of that development is that the Republican party became a little more extreme in the right-populist direction, and that process snowballed.  A person like Trump wouldn't have seen the light of day in either major party 25 years ago, but it's obviously his party now.  

The Democrats seem to be trying their best to catch up.  They have a small but loud crazy-eyes caucus that looks eager to pick fights with more moderate members of their own party.  And they have a new quasi-religion in Wokeism that provides them with a sense of direction, a very friendly audience in professional managerial class, and fuel for their own self-righteousness.  The drawback is that Wokeism is pretty ugly and tends to be repellant to normal people.  Assuming the Democrats lose both chambers of congress and go on to lose the white house, I could easily see the Democrats lurching hard toward the progressive-woke end, and I could also see them snapping out of it.  Hoping for the latter but not betting on it.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yet.  

It takes a while for a party to go off the rails.  For the Republicans, I think you can trace this back to a) the Tea Party for making the GOP more populist and b) a willingness to use the primary system to nominate the most extreme candidates possible.  These two things may be closely related but I'm not sure about that, and what matters is that both of these happened, not whether one caused the other.  

The result of that development is that the Republican party became a little more extreme in the right-populist direction, and that process snowballed.  A person like Trump wouldn't have seen the light of day in either major party 25 years ago, but it's obviously his party now.  

The Democrats seem to be trying their best to catch up.  They have a small but loud crazy-eyes caucus that looks eager to pick fights with more moderate members of their own party.  And they have a new quasi-religion in Wokeism that provides them with a sense of direction, a very friendly audience in professional managerial class, and fuel for their own self-righteousness.  The drawback is that Wokeism is pretty ugly and tends to be repellant to normal people.  Assuming the Democrats lose both chambers of congress and go on to lose the white house, I could easily see the Democrats lurching hard toward the progressive-woke end, and I could also see them snapping out of it.  Hoping for the latter but not betting on it.
Click to expand...
Agree with a lot of this, but not your comments about wokeism. 
Wokeism is simply a new term for liberal cultural change (the old term was political correctness) which has essentially been transforming this nation since the 1960s. The formula is almost always the same: the change is first proposed by a small group of intellectuals or college types, usually far more leftist than the average liberal. Then, usually a few years later it catches on among many liberals. Then there is a backlash among both conservatives, who almost instinctively oppose all such changes, and much of the general public, who haven’t considered the issue and isn’t really comfortable with it, at least at first. This backlash leads to Republican electoral victories, sometimes several. Then the change becomes slowly more popular, and eventually wins out to a point where it becomes part of the norm. 
 

Obviously gay marriage is a good example of what I’m talking about. 

 
timschochet said:
Agree with a lot of this, but not your comments about wokeism. 
Wokeism is simply a new term for liberal cultural change (the old term was political correctness) which has essentially been transforming this nation since the 1960s. The formula is almost always the same: the change is first proposed by a small group of intellectuals or college types, usually far more leftist than the average liberal. Then, usually a few years later it catches on among many liberals. Then there is a backlash among both conservatives, who almost instinctively oppose all such changes, and much of the general public, who haven’t considered the issue and isn’t really comfortable with it, at least at first. This backlash leads to Republican electoral victories, sometimes several. Then the change becomes slowly more popular, and eventually wins out to a point where it becomes part of the norm. 
 

Obviously gay marriage is a good example of what I’m talking about. 
Click to expand...
Yes.  I was here for gay marriage.  The debate is nothing like what is happening now.

Andrew Sullivan might be the single person most directly responsible for getting gay marriage legalized, to the degree that any single person can take credit for that type of change.  He sees this quite clearly too.  You're refighting the last war IMO.

You're a student of American history -- you and I both are both big fans of The Glory and the Dream but Manchester, for example.  (Kind of random, but the kind of thing a person notices.)  Think less "civil rights movement" and more "religious awakening."  That's the historical parallel you're looking for.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes.  I was here for gay marriage.  The debate is nothing like what is happening now.

Andrew Sullivan might be the single person most directly responsible for getting gay marriage legalized, to the degree that any single person can take credit for that type of change.  He sees this quite clearly too.  You're refighting the last war IMO.
Click to expand...
But again Sullivan isn’t new either. Betty Friedan was the most influential fighter for women’s rights all throughout the 60s. But in the 70s, a new breed of feminists, led by Gloria Steinem, took over the movement, and Friedan criticized it as becoming way out there and too leftist for her. 
Freidan didn’t see things “more clearly”, and neither does Andrew Sullivan. Both of them were/are uncomfortable with the pace of change. Which happens to the best of us. But eventually the change usually wins out. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yet.  

It takes a while for a party to go off the rails.  For the Republicans, I think you can trace this back to a) the Tea Party for making the GOP more populist and b) a willingness to use the primary system to nominate the most extreme candidates possible.  These two things may be closely related but I'm not sure about that, and what matters is that both of these happened, not whether one caused the other.  

The result of that development is that the Republican party became a little more extreme in the right-populist direction, and that process snowballed.  A person like Trump wouldn't have seen the light of day in either major party 25 years ago, but it's obviously his party now.  

The Democrats seem to be trying their best to catch up.  They have a small but loud crazy-eyes caucus that looks eager to pick fights with more moderate members of their own party.  And they have a new quasi-religion in Wokeism that provides them with a sense of direction, a very friendly audience in professional managerial class, and fuel for their own self-righteousness.  The drawback is that Wokeism is pretty ugly and tends to be repellant to normal people.  Assuming the Democrats lose both chambers of congress and go on to lose the white house, I could easily see the Democrats lurching hard toward the progressive-woke end, and I could also see them snapping out of it.  Hoping for the latter but not betting on it.
Click to expand...
Interesting points.  I’m not so sure on them losing losing losing but maybe they do.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes.  I was here for gay marriage.  The debate is nothing like what is happening now.

Andrew


Sullivan


might be the single person most directly responsible for getting gay marriage legalized, to the degree that any single person can take credit for that type of change.  He sees this quite clearly too.  You're refighting the last war IMO.

You're a student of American history -- you and I both are both big fans of The Glory and the Dream but Manchester, for example.  (Kind of random, but the kind of thing a person notices.)  Think less "civil rights movement" and more "religious awakening."  That's the historical parallel you're looking for.  
Click to expand...


This "wokiesm" is really more akin to what led up to the Russia Revolution, IMO, than anything else.  Which is why guys like Putin just sit back, laugh and say, "Yeah, been there, done that".

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
This seems like it could have been said about virtually every social change at the start.

Count me on Team @timschochet - change is coming, you guys can fight all you want but “wokeism” will eventually win out.
Click to expand...


It also won out in 1917 as well, and ushered in one of the most brutal periods in human history we've ever seen - to the tune of 50+ million dead or disappeared in Russia alone.

This new "wokeism" is not about equality - it's about purity.  You - and Tim - may think it's about change but in reality it's all about purges of dissenting views.  And if you think you're above all that and won't be affected then just wait.  Many early 20th century Russians also felt the same way until their usefulness in ushering in the brutality wasn't needed anymore.

"Wokeism" is a far-left religion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
It also won out in 1917 as well, and ushered in one of the most brutal periods in human history we've ever seen - to the tune of 50+ million dead or disappeared in Russia alone.

This new "wokeism" is not about equality - it's about purity.  You - and Tim - may think it's about change but in reality it's all about purges of dissenting views.  And if you think you're above all that and won't be affected then just wait.  Many early 20th century Russians also felt the same way until their usefulness in ushering in the brutality wasn't needed anymore.

"Wokeism" is a far-left religion.
Click to expand...
Cultural change is not remotely similar to the bloody political upheaval  that took place in Russia. All of us learning to stop using certain words, stop behaving in certain manners, is not the same as millions being shot or put in gulags. Just as Covid vaccines bear no relationship to Mengele’s experiments, and the treatment of illegal immigrants bears no relationship to Dachau. Oh and Trump wasn’t Hitler either. 
 

People need to stop with these gross analogies. 

 
timschochet said:
Cultural change is not remotely similar to the bloody political upheaval  that took place in Russia. All of us learning to stop using certain words, stop behaving in certain manners, is not the same as millions being shot or put in gulags. Just as Covid vaccines bear no relationship to Mengele’s experiments, and the treatment of illegal immigrants bears no relationship to Dachau. Oh and Trump wasn’t Hitler either. 
 

People need to stop with these gross analogies. 
Click to expand...


Sorry, Tim, but we're going to have to disagree.  Russians ARE saying (and I agree, obviously) that this new "wokeism" pushed by the left is very comparable to the Bolshevik Revolution.

The New Bolshevism is what this "wokeism" really is.  Ignore it at your/our own peril.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Cultural change is not remotely similar to the bloody political upheaval  that took place in Russia. All of us learning to stop using certain words, stop behaving in certain manners, is not the same as millions being shot or put in gulags. Just as Covid vaccines bear no relationship to Mengele’s experiments, and the treatment of illegal immigrants bears no relationship to Dachau. Oh and Trump wasn’t Hitler either. 
 

People need to stop with these gross analogies. 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, lots of folks (not just on these boards) have blinders on.  No matter what, they'll carry their points of view (however misguided) to their graves.  I have a best friend like this (from high school) and have learned even with clear evidence in front of him (for anything), he'll never change his mind once it's set.  If we ever have differing views i just change the subject.  

 
SoBeDad said:
A lot of people couldn't believe the results of the 2016 election, one with worse optics than 2020 because Hillary won the popular vote and most of the pollsters had her winning. There was a recount started in 3 states, not by Hillary, but by Jill Stein. There were massive protests by the left, including the huge women's march in DC the day after the inauguration. The biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 are the conspiratorial theories fueled by Trump. That's why so many on the right believe the election was stolen without any real proof. Trump would've been successful at starting a new religion. 
Click to expand...
Not to say that your point RE: Trump is wrong-its not, but are you seriously saying there weren't conspiracy theories floated by MSM for four years about Trump's election being rigged/stolen by Russia, most likely with collusion from iside the Trump team?  

 
sho nuff said:
I think Trump is an extreme and the actions of the party show he still controls things. What is the equivalent on the left?
Click to expand...


The equivalent on the left is the entire woke/blm/politically correct/cancel culture/social justice warriors on the left which is the very reason for the rise of Trump.  

 
timschochet said:
But again Sullivan isn’t new either. Betty Friedan was the most influential fighter for women’s rights all throughout the 60s. But in the 70s, a new breed of feminists, led by Gloria Steinem, took over the movement, and Friedan criticized it as becoming way out there and too leftist for her. 
Freidan didn’t see things “more clearly”, and neither does Andrew Sullivan. Both of them were/are uncomfortable with the pace of change. Which happens to the best of us. But eventually the change usually wins out. 
Click to expand...
Maybe.  All I know is that nobody arguing in favor of gay marriage ever told me that I needed to get gay married.  By way of contrast, the Wokenvolk are extremely interested in telling me how to live, what media to consume, and how to think.  We'll see how that works out.

 
timschochet said:
Cultural change is not remotely similar to the bloody political upheaval  that took place in Russia. All of us learning to stop using certain words, stop behaving in certain manners, is not the same as millions being shot or put in gulags. Just as Covid vaccines bear no relationship to Mengele’s experiments, and the treatment of illegal immigrants bears no relationship to Dachau. Oh and Trump wasn’t Hitler either. 
 

People need to stop with these gross analogies. 
Click to expand...
They comparisons get more and more outlandish.  It’s to the point of becoming comical.  

 
BladeRunner said:
And this is how history repeats itself.  :doh:
Click to expand...
Do you have any real knowledge of the Russian Revolution? You should. It’s a fascinating, essential piece of history. The best place to start, in my opinion, is Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert Massie. 
It’s really not a good analogy, Blade.

 
timschochet said:
Do you have any real knowledge of the Russian Revolution? You should. It’s a fascinating, essential piece of history. The best place to start, in my opinion, is Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert Massie. 
It’s really not a good analogy, Blade.
Click to expand...


I appreciate the reference.  Thanks!

And yes, I have some history but I also read too and the similarities are striking.  Gaffing it off at your/ours own peril.

You can't ignore what Russians see as similarities in what is happening here now with The New Religion of Wokeism and the precursors to the Bolshevik Revolution.  Try these on for size:

https://medium.com/@csreader/dictatorship-and-social-justice-strategy-8e1003a302ad

https://medium.com/@csreader/dictatorship-and-social-justice-strategy-8e1003a302ad

Money Quote:

"To be clear, Social Justice religion is not the same thing as Bolshevism, which conquered a nation and turned it into a charnel house. But the psychological dynamics are so similar that I can understand now why Soviet-bloc emigres feel in their bones that something wicked is coming, and coming fast."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
4K
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
426
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top