"The Moral Collapse of the Republican Party"

[esmith]

guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I shant. You may.

No problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's a couple of excerpts from Paul D. Miller, who teaches public policy at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a research fellow at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He previously served on the National Security Council Staff from 2007 through 2009:

What is baffling is that the strategic calculus is so obvious, yet the entire party is getting it so massively wrong. That they are getting it so wrong is evidence that they are wholly driven by short-sighted, tactical partisan interests. They want the Republican Party to win and they want to be reelected. This isn’t a shocking insight; it is exactly what elected politicians do.

But what surprises me is that they want the Republican Party to win no matter what the party stands for, even if the party flirts with white supremacy and proto-fascism. I held out the hope—now, I see, hopelessly deluded and naïve—that politicians understood that there is a line you don’t cross; there comes a point at which principle really does come before party; that the good of the nation should come before partisanship; and that when your party starts to go off the deep end, you jump ship...

But fourth, consider what you’re trying to believe: either Trump was faking his bombast, xenophobia, and illiberalism during the primary, in which case you have to ask: Why would a candidate believe it is to his advantage to pretend to be an American Mussolini? Or the alternative: Trump was genuine then and faking it now, in which case you’re openly rooting for Trump to trick his way into the presidency by lying about his contempt for the norms of democracy...

The entire article can be found here: The Moral Collapse Of The Republican Party

Comments?

Who would have thought Republicans would confirm the observation of a moral collapse six months later by attempting to gut the ethics oversight committee and put themselves in charge of ethical oversight?

 

[habiru]

What disinformation are you referring to?
Newest report says that the information provided by the hacking of Podesta's and the DNC emails was not altered. In other words what was reveled was correct.
Source
Hillary did have a private email server as Sec of State. To many this is not a problem but to others and those cognizant of procedures for handling classified or possible classified information it is a problem.
Hillary or her team destroyed emails. We do not know if any of these emails were related to her position as Sec of State
Hillary's server had material that was considered classified
There were questionable information on the "pay for play" actions of the Clinton's
Hillary did push for our involvement in Libya
The Clinton's have always been considered by many as conducting themselves in a manner that may have not broken the law but bent it.
The Obama said that the Hillary would be a continuation of his policies and ideas.


Now to many, enough to elect Trump as the 45th President of the United States, the above issues with the Hillary was enough. Now those that were and are opposed to President-elect Trump do not see those issues as problematic, that is understandable. However, you and others can not say that the majority of attacks against the Hillary was disinformation. Remember, those attacks that were released against President-elect Trump were pretty damaging to his character. However, those that voted for him disregarded them and preferred him or her.
Buck-up and live with it.

Everyone is twisted to a certain degree. But it seem as they had put into office are the twisted of twisted. the ones that doesn't knows what the meanings of the word moral. But they looks at President Trump as a Dudley do-right. They knows that he have not been molested as a child like they all were. And he lives by a set of principles of doing what is right. It seem as if they were only putting their own kind in office that will protect their way of living or thinking. They doesn't want improvements being done. but to take whatever they can by any means that is necessary while they are alive. Like they are barbarians.

New book: Hillary Clinton blamed Bill's sex addiction on his abuse as a child

Clintons Return White House Furniture

WND: Frank Marshall Davis Sexually Molested Obama As A Child | Right Wing Watch

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship

 

[metis]

Who would have thought Republicans would confirm the observation of a moral collapse six months later by attempting to gut the ethics oversight committee and put themselves in charge of ethical oversight?

I hear ya. "Nice" start, eh?

 

[Mister Emu]

This was a near record low for voter turnout.

Higher than 2012

2012G - United States Elections Project
2016g - United States Elections Project

 

[esmith]

Higher than 2012

2012G - United States Elections Project
2016g - United States Elections Project

It's nice when we have facts isn't it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Turmp did a simlar thing to his group as he recieved less votes than Romney did in 2012 but he didn't loose as many as Hillary.

I hate to pile on, but this isn't true either. Trump gained about 2MM more votes than Romney.

 

[esmith]

2012 vote tally according to Source
Obama 62,611,250
Romney 59,134,475

2016 vote tally according to Source
Trump 62,979,636
Hillary 65,844,610

 

[tytlyf]

2012 vote tally according to Source
Obama 62,611,250
Romney 59,134,475

2016 vote tally according to Source
Trump 62,979,636
Hillary 65,844,610

What are you saying? That democrats had a higher turnout in 2016 and republicans were nearly identical?

 

[esmith]

What are you saying? That democrats had a higher turnout in 2016 and republicans were nearly identical?

If you aren't following the discussion why are you interjecting drivel?
See Posts #206-225-227-228 if you want to make a constructive comment.

 

[Mister Emu]

2012 vote tally according to Source
Obama 62,611,250
Romney 59,134,475

2016 vote tally according to Source
Trump 62,979,636
Hillary 65,844,610

The numbers I used were from the FEC and they had Obama at 65.9MM and Romney at 60.9MM for 2012. http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf

They haven't, to my knowledge, produced results pdf for this election yet.

What are you saying? That democrats had a higher turnout in 2016 and republicans were nearly identical?

Do you know what subtraction and addition are and how to utilize them? Even with those numbers, it shows both at +3MM with the Republicans having a larger gain.

 

[tytlyf]

Do you know what subtraction and addition are and how to utilize them? Even with those numbers, it shows both at +3MM with the Republicans having a larger gain.

? I did the math already. Democrats came out more in 2016 than republicans. Republicans came out at the same rate as in 2012

 

[esmith]

? I did the math already. Democrats came out more in 2016 than republicans. Republicans came out at the same rate as in 2012

Well then that must mean more Independents and Democrats voted for President-elect Trump than they did for Romney.

 

[tytlyf]

Well then that must mean more Independents and Democrats voted for President-elect Trump than they did for Romney.

Possibly, just pointing out that democrats turned out more for Clinton over Obama. Trump was nearly the same turnout as Rmoney

 

[esmith]

? I did the math already. Democrats came out more in 2016 than republicans. Republicans came out at the same rate as in 2012

Well then that must mean more Independents and Democrats voted for President-elect Trump than they did for Romney.

Possibly, just pointing out that democrats turned out more for Clinton over Obama. Trump was nearly the same turnout as Rmoney

That means your assertion that:
Republicans turn out for 2012 and 2016 just might be in error.
That over a million votes is nearly the same

Then you try and change your argument to something else. Ok, I understand.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I hate to pile on, but this isn't true either. Trump gained about 2MM more votes than Romney.

Higher than 2012

2012G - United States Elections Project
2016g - United States Elections Project

You are correct dear sir. Total number is lower. That was my mistake. I did not fact check where I heard that. Going back now I found they meant that both Hillary and Trump got less total % than their former candidates. Trum recieved 46% of the vote while Romney recieved 47%. HIllary 48% and Obama 51%. 3rd parties did well this year.

 

[habiru]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are correct dear sir. Total number is lower. That was my mistake. I did not fact check where I heard that. Going back now I found they meant that both Hillary and Trump got less total % than their former candidates. Trum recieved 46% of the vote while Romney recieved 47%. HIllary 48% and Obama 51%. 3rd parties did well this year.

It's really just however you want to look at it. Raw numbers alone, Hillary did on par with Obama in 2012 at just under 66 million. And while Trump did gain votes over Romney, he still failed to gain as many as Obama or Hillary.
As for 3rd parties, in modern times at least, Ross Perot still holds the bar-setting standard for doing well (those youngin's wish Ron Paul had momentum).

 

[tytlyf]

That means your assertion that:
Republicans turn out for 2012 and 2016 just might be in error.
That over a million votes is nearly the same

Then you try and change your argument to something else. Ok, I understand.

I got mixed up looking at the stats. They were ordered differently and got me good.

Both parties/candidates saw a 3million + increase from 4 years ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Both parties/candidates saw a 3million + increase from 4 years ago.

Hillary just barely under-performed Obama.