Politics, hypocrites, and good people of the U.S.

[Twangbanger]

...firing a judge that overturned his brash and childish decision...

Which specific event are you talking about?

Things are happening fast, and I'm trying to keep up.

 

[jamil]

I've been away from ingo for a long...

Rather than going point for point, i'm just going to lay it out like this:

Areas of agreement:


1) The hypocrisy is indeed flowing very hard. I've remarked elsewhere how precise the mirror image is, on both sides, in the rhetoric we heard in 2008 and throughout Obama's presidency and now.


2) The name-calling volume is indeed vast, though I'd say more voluminous on the left, particularly in mainstream media and social media.


3) The finger pointing is noteworthy, but the problem seems to be more related to item #1.


Areas of disagreement:


This is too general to list in sections. It's all related.

There are some legitimate harsh criticism of the left, enough that they've earned the "they" label we give them, and justifies the "us" label we give ourselves. THEY have waged a vicious campaign of marginalizing people for holding to traditional values. It is that campaign that is most responsible for divided the US into us/them.

Conclusions:

I remember a time when, to a large majority of the country, being a Democrat or Republican was not the anathema to the other as it is now. Sure, to the fringe right and left, there has always been a mutually toxic dichotomy of ideas. But the fringes seem to have taken root into the mainstream as the left has executed their marginalizing tactics to move the nation leftward, and away from traditional values.

It should not be surprising to anyone that the people who have not progressed from the traditional values, don't particularly like being called names that don't reflect reality. So if we want to bring back an era of solidarity as Americans, the left needs to stop this nonsense.

There are some things the Right needs to learn about this too. Primarily to stop using big government to make people observe their traditional values. A government powerful enough to enforce OUR values is a government powerful enough to enforce THEIR values. The right should be able to observe their own values, but by their own choice. So should the left. Neither side should have the power to force their own values on the other side. Of course the Left has complained of being forced to observe traditional values, but as they gain in the culture war, they're now trying to impose their values.

As the Left has Marginalized the right, they have forced their values upon the right. If this continues, I see no path for unifying the nation socially until one side has utterly destroyed the other. And right now, I think eventually the side that wins will be the side that rocks the cradle, from birth through college. And for the past 30 years the Left has dominated that.

The only long term solution I see is for liberty minded people to gain control of education and instill, not "traditional values", or leftist values, but to simply instill the values of liberty in the next generations, such that they see the folly of forcing society to adhere to one group's values. Live and let live is a better guiding principle for a society than live as I do.

 

[spec4]

To each his own. I have spent several decades on this earth and of course entered it with no preconceived notions. As I aged I have grown more and more to the right.. In our country it is very simple to those who look: Dems = Bad, GOP = Not Bad.

 

[Kutnupe14]

To each his own. I have spent several decades on this earth and of course entered it with no preconceived notions. As I aged I have grown more and more to the right.. In our country it is very simple to those who look: Dems = Bad, GOP = Not Bad.

...and then you met your parents. That's when it ends.

 

[churchmouse]

...and then you met your parents. That's when it ends.

Well.....for me this is true.....

Grew up in and around lever pulling Dems. Literally.
I had the same views by indoctrination until somewhere in my mid 20's the lights came on.

 

[printcraft]

It's all horrible and we SHOULD have elected YET ANOTHER career politician to solve it. SURELY this time it would have worked.

All you dipsticks could have had Jeb! with trusted leadership for a stronger America***, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Thanks.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

He's right though. Many of us who voted for Trump overlooked a lot of faults to avoid Hillary. It's not acceptable. It's that it was the least evil. Sometimes the pragmatic solution isn't acceptable. But you do it anyway because the alternative is even worse.

Saying that "(i)t's not acceptable . . " to overlook a candidate's faults seems to imply that there is a perfect human being out there who is simultaneously without faults and willing to enter the pigsty of national politics. Kinda like expecting a unicorn in your pig barn when you go out there in the morning. Every candidate is going to have faults; the question is: do the candidate's faults outweigh his expressed policy views. In the case of Obama, all his faults were dismissed by the transparently false "racism" charge, followed by sexism, homophobia, and the ubiquitous "hitler." Not only did he mostly lie to the American electorate during both his election campaigns about what he was going to do, he lied about his policy objectives even as he was implementing them. All his administration's scandals, from "Fast & Furious" through Lois Lerner and the IRS and Benghazi were minimized or dismissed by his proponents, while his opponents were roundly castigated as haters and liars.

Trump got elected, at least in part, because he was able to articulate a vision for America that resonated with about half the country - and MOST of the country outside megatropoli on the East and West coasts. In some part, his popularity was his vision; in some part his popularity was because he spoke plainly and didn't buckle under to or kowtow to the media or his opponents. A great many of my friends and acquaintances like that side of him as much as his expressed vision. Probably half the country was convinced that, whatever his faults, his opponent was a cheat, a liar (and not a very believable one, at that), and a crook who was rather openly flouting the law, getting special treatment - a pass - while being investigated for actions that got other people jail time, and fairly obviously, in real danger of not being physically fit enough to handle the stresses of the Presidency.

So, since many of us couldn't face the thought of voting for a blatant crook, we held our noses and voted for the non-politician with a vision and the guts to push it. The surprising thing is that, only less than two weeks into his Presidency, he has taken steps to implement most of his campaign promises; has picked solid business executives and military men for key positions - and is letting them do their jobs without micro-managing them; and looks fair to be working on the rest of his agenda. His opponents are learning the limitations liabilities of ruling by executive order and changing the longstanding rules of the legislative bodies to push legislation through, which just might possibly be a good thing for the future of the federal government operations.

In the meantime, some of us are just sitting back, enjoying the schadenfreude of the other side screaming like smashed cats and crying like abandoned puppies, and crossing our fingers that it doesn't all come apart in the next four years.

 

[jamil]

Saying that "(i)t's not acceptable . . " to overlook a candidate's faults seems to imply that there is a perfect human being out there who is simultaneously without faults and willing to enter the pigsty of national politics. Kinda like expecting a unicorn in your pig barn when you go out there in the morning. Every candidate is going to have faults; the question is: do the candidate's faults outweigh his expressed policy views. In the case of Obama, all his faults were dismissed by the transparently false "racism" charge, followed by sexism, homophobia, and the ubiquitous "hitler." Not only did he mostly lie to the American electorate during both his election campaigns about what he was going to do, he lied about his policy objectives even as he was implementing them. All his administration's scandals, from "Fast & Furious" through Lois Lerner and the IRS and Benghazi were minimized or dismissed by his proponents, while his opponents were roundly castigated as haters and liars.

Trump got elected, at least in part, because he was able to articulate a vision for America that resonated with about half the country - and MOST of the country outside megatropoli on the East and West coasts. In some part, his popularity was his vision; in some part his popularity was because he spoke plainly and didn't buckle under to or kowtow to the media or his opponents. A great many of my friends and acquaintances like that side of him as much as his expressed vision. Probably half the country was convinced that, whatever his faults, his opponent was a cheat, a liar (and not a very believable one, at that), and a crook who was rather openly flouting the law, getting special treatment - a pass - while being investigated for actions that got other people jail time, and fairly obviously, in real danger of not being physically fit enough to handle the stresses of the Presidency.

So, since many of us couldn't face the thought of voting for a blatant crook, we held our noses and voted for the non-politician with a vision and the guts to push it. The surprising thing is that, only less than two weeks into his Presidency, he has taken steps to implement most of his campaign promises; has picked solid business executives and military men for key positions - and is letting them do their jobs without micro-managing them; and looks fair to be working on the rest of his agenda. His opponents are learning the limitations liabilities of ruling by executive order and changing the longstanding rules of the legislative bodies to push legislation through, which just might possibly be a good thing for the future of the federal government operations.

In the meantime, some of us are just sitting back, enjoying the schadenfreude of the other side screaming like smashed cats and crying like abandoned puppies, and crossing our fingers that it doesn't all come apart in the next four years.

I kinda think we're saying many of the same things. My way was just a way to say it. The meaning is about the people like me who had to make a choice of least evils. Of course Trump supporters didn't have to make a choice like that because they think he's great. I've never met a perfect human being so I certainly would never try to convey that. Everyone has faults.

 

[jamil]

It's all horrible and we SHOULD have elected YET ANOTHER career politician to solve it. SURELY this time it would have worked.

All you dipsticks could have had Jeb! with trusted leadership for a stronger America***, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Thanks.

Not sure where that comes from. There's a record on INGO of the people who actually wanted Jeb. It's in the thread where I tallied a ranked order vote. As I recall no one wanted Jeb as their #1 choice. Some had him in their top five, but I don't even think he took anyone's second place.

 

[1861navy]

I know they didn't all approve, but they took a vote and he won

That's true, he did. Rigged voting and all!

I'm not a Trump supporter. I tapped the screen next to his name, yes, but I voted against Clinton. The only way to do that and have any chance of keeping her out of the office was to vote him into it. Whichever one got the Presidency, it was going to be a crap sandwich from which we all have to take a bite. I'm hoping for more bread than crap at this point.

Nonetheless, I will raise my voice in agreement that conflicts of interest are exceedingly problematic, no matter who is in office and party to them.

And Doc, I said it before the election: I don't know who's going to win. I only know who's going to lose, and that is America. I pray that Mr. Trump proves me wrong, and on that, I will happily eat the proverbial crow if so.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill that was well said. I'd like to be wrong about him too.

When Trump hit the campaign trail he put out a list of what his intentions were.
The 1st 100 days if we will all think together.
In my humble opinion he is doing exactly what he said was going to happen.
Now everyone is freaking out when their pet project/EO/personal income stream is getting changed. Cake and eat it to comes to mind.
He is not business as usual and that is exactly what was needed after the disaster that was "O".
The immigration issue was top shelf. He told us of his plans and he is doing exactly that.
What more can be asked.

The media is driving all of this Bravo Sierra because their side got thumped.

He is doing what he said he'd do, but it seems eating cake wasn't acceptable last go around, why should it be any different now? I disagree on the immigration issue, it was horribly executed and doesn't seem to include the countries he has had financial ties to. I'm not saying that in itself is a crime or anything, it just seems to be rather convenient. Also there are some that are picking one thing, but maybe some just stick to what they know. It doesn't necessarily mean they have a pet project per se.

Lastly the media isn't covering or blowing up his investments in ETP or Energy Transfer Partners or Phillips 66 that are direct owners of the dakota access pipeline. The same corporations he has removed regulations on as far as a full environmental impact statement. The same pipeline he has ordered to be expedited. If the O did that, a lot of people sure would have made a stink.

Lastly many of those same media outlets parent companies are invested in ETP or Phillips 66 stock so no they wont cover it. Just saying I'm not going off media hype because I listen to multiple news sources and there are some serious issues at hand here conveniently being left out.

He's right though. Many of us who voted for Trump overlooked a lot of faults to avoid Hillary. It's not acceptable. It's that it was the least evil. Sometimes the pragmatic solution isn't acceptable. But you do it anyway because the alternative is even worse.

Jamils post left in for truth.

 

[Twangbanger]

I just hope people understand that words have meanings, that "hypocrisy" has a meaning, and accepting / tolerating / overlooking faults is not it. They don't mean the same thing. For example, if my wife overreacts to things, but I'm willing to hang with it because she's good in other ways, that's not hypocrisy. Tolerating something you don't like is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy has a specific meaning, and for it to apply in the context of the OP, Obama and Trump would have had to do the exact same things, and be regarded differently for it by the exact same, specific people (and not just the generic, right-wing "they").

For example, a lot of people on INGO gave Obama written hell over his "unconstitutional overreach" in his executive orders. I was not one of them. I understood that having an office gives one powers. And being the captain of the expansive Executive Branch gives one powers to direct the work of, and give orders to, employees of that branch in how to perform their jobs, within the boundaries of established law. I suppose that if you're the type of person who spends your Saturdays swinging Gadsden flags off overpasses, any Executive Order might look like overreach to you. But not me. I sat back and accepted Barack Obama's prerogative to do all kinds of Executive Orders as part of his job in commanding the Executive Branch (even though he did actually overreach, and get overturned by courts, in some cases). I simply did not like the content of some of the things he did, even though I recognized his prerogative to do them. I am free to rip his ass for policy decisions I did not like, and I am similarly free to be blithely unconcerned about all manner of Trump Executive Orders, that are legal. Even if I screamed like a smashed cat at some of the things Obama did. You see, I thought they were bad policy. That does not make me, or anyone else, a hypocrite. It just means I like, and dislike, different things in leaders than you do ("you," in this case, being used in the unspecific sense).

On the topic of business holdings: what businesses did Obama own, that INGO right-wingers chastised him about? Can’t think of any? Fine, then what we have here, is a case of “something which troubles you about Trump.” And that’s fine with me. But “hypocrisy?” No, sir.

If Trump uses the IRS to investigate his political enemies, and we don't excoriate him for it, while we did for Obama? Now that's hypocrisy. But nobody here has really pointed out anything like that in the Trump administration, yet. All we seem to be getting is this vague, approximate crap from people who posit that "If Obama did that, you'd be all over it" and are thus guilty of hypocrisy. That's BS, because unless Obama actually did that exact thing and we roasted his ass, you really have no way of establishing proper use of the term hypocrisy. It's just conjecture on your part (again, unspecific "your"). Once again, all you have is “something you don’t like.” But “hypocrisy?” Butch please.

If Trump fires an Acting, insubordinate Attorney General? Shee-eet. She didn't "overturn" anything, contrary to the OP's assertion. She simply refused to follow an order. That's grounds for firing in _any_ occupation ever heard of, and I would have fired her ass myself. In fact, I would've supported Trump's right to fire her ass for any manner of lesser infractions, down to simply being a pecker-face and undermining her boss. That's what General Stanley McChrystal did to Barack Obama back when there was a war going on; Barack Obama fired his ass for it, and you heard nary a peep out of me about it. Nor most of the other assembled INGO right-wingers, who seemed at the time to have a clear grasp on what insubordination means (perhaps the OP missed that, because it was during the time period when he was "away" from INGO and not here waving the hypocrisy flag).

So again, let’s get our terms straight here: what is “Hypocrisy” in Trump’s first two weeks; and what is simply “that which you personally do not like?” Because the two are nothing like the same.

 

[hoosierdoc]

that is one of the most pathetic things I've seen in a long time

 

[1861navy]

I give it a 1.5/10 on the rant scale. My favorite part is where your last paragraph contradicts most of your earlier points.

1. I reject your premise. The same media that went out of its way to protect Obama, whose administration was one of the most corrupt in history, is now attacking Trump with wild abandon. When one takes the time to learn the actual facts instead of blindly following the media, one can draw his own conclusion and criticize or praise where warranted.

2. I don't think you speak for the majority of Americans, you certainly don't speak for me nor it appears a substantial portion of either INGO or the United States. Why is it the solution to all the "evils" of the world(ie corporations, business, etc.) more government? Government is the worst of those "evils" not the solution to them.

3. The surest way to guarantee peace is to always surrender at the first sign of conflict. No thanks, I would rather have freedom with conflict than peace with slavery. You of course are free to disagree but since I value freedom and am willing to fight for it and you seem to put much stock in avoiding conflict, I guess you will just have to surrender to my point of view. See how that works?

4. Do you really expect people, who have actually done their own research on these issues, to be angry over factually inaccurate stories? Or do you simply think everyone should think the way you do and respond the way you would?

5. Odd, I remember it being wrong when Bush did "it", perfectly ok when Obama did "it", and wrong again now that Trump is doing "it" at least according to the media. I'm not sure what you want here: do you want "it" to always be wrong? always right? or whichever most comports with your views?

6. I couldn't agree more and will follow your lead.

Your entitled to that however;

1: Not all media is attacking trump, and not all media protected Obama so that's flawed. There's media on all sides. You also mention facts in a condescending manner as if you are the gatekeeper of facts. Not being rude, just honest. Lastly one mans trash is another treasure. Your media sources might be garbage to the next guy while you uphold it as fact. So be careful on which side of the river you travel.

2: never said I spoke for anyone, so don't know where you got that. Again not to be rude but neither one of us knows a substantial number of ingo, so no I don't speak for them. No where did I advocate for more government so totally lost on that one.

3: No idea how you turn what I said into that, but whatever.

4: There you go again saying facts, oh gatekeeper. It isn't factually inaccurate he has some conflict of interest, it also isn't inaccurate to point out the sillyness on all sides. Many who have responded disagree with me wholly or partially. That's the point of conversation and being open minded is listening to opposing viewpoints and accepting those differences. Disagreement are necessary to understand one another.

5: There wasn't one specific "it" so I assume your paraphrasing. No "it" wasn't okay when Obama did "it" that's part of what I'm saying man. Maybe to hold our elected officials accountable in the same manner regardless of political views, party, or official?

 

[1861navy]

Rather than going point for point, i'm just going to lay it out like this:

Well said Jamil.
I agree and disagree about traditional views on the left and right. I agree at times one side jabs more at the other, but it works the other way too. I don't see this whole concept of left marginalizing right or america. Nor do I see right marginalizing left. It appears some people are threatened by opposing views and feel victimized, that's a normal reaction in my opinion.

All too often I hear someone on the " right" say the left started it. Then I hear people on the "left" say the right started it. Didn't we all start it? That ideology of a culture war is disturbing to me because it represents how some are unable to accept other values, cultures, and ways of life. At the end you said it well with we need liberty mindedness to uphold, not left or right ideologies.

 

[oldpink]

So, a community organizer was a good fit for the presidency, but a businessman is not?
The silliness level hit critical mass at that point, so I quit reading there.

 

[aaron580]

So, a community organizer was a good fit for the presidency, but a businessman is not?
The silliness level hit critical mass at that point, so I quit reading there.

Well you know working with things like money, people, profit, and growing a business empire is way less impressive than community organizing and takes so much less skill.... processes, efficiency, numbers, taxes, profit and loss.... just regular community organizer things, oh wait....

 

[SSGSAD]

When Trump hit the campaign trail he put out a list of what his intentions were.
The 1st 100 days if we will all think together.
In my humble opinion he is doing exactly what he said was going to happen.
Now everyone is freaking out when their pet project/EO/personal income stream is getting changed. Cake and eat it to comes to mind.
He is not business as usual and that is exactly what was needed after the disaster that was "O".
The immigration issue was top shelf. He told us of his plans and he is doing exactly that.
What more can be asked.

The media is driving all of this Bravo Sierra because their side got thumped.

YES, THIS .....

Trump, made PROMISES, and he is WORKING to show us

HE is a MAN of HIS WORD .....

If you don't like it, TOUGH .....

I did NOT like ONE THING bho, did,

in his 8 years .....

bho, had FULL CONTROL, for his first two years,

and he DID NOTHING ..... all he could do was blame Bush.....


"I inherited this mess" ..... and did NOTHING to fix it .....


.1% growth, is NO GROWTH .....

IIRC, RR had 7% growth, and THAT is GROWTH !!!!!

You want a dime .10

OR do yhou want $7.00 ?????

THAT is the difference, between .10 % and 7.00 % .....

I lived through RR, and I had PLENTY of money, now

I am BROKE .....

I am looking FORWARD, to what President Trump, has to offer .....

Give the man a chance, it took us 100 years,

to get this messed up .....

It is going to take longer than 100 days to get it straight .....

But as the "l" say, so far, it is a GOOD first step .....

 

[churchmouse]

Well you know working with things like money, people, profit, and growing a business empire is way less impressive than community organizing and takes so much less skill.... processes, efficiency, numbers, taxes, profit and loss.... just regular community organizer things, oh wait....

Give me a man/woman who has actually made a payroll for employees successfully over his/her lifetime over an organizer any day.

Someone that actually understands "HOW" the process works over an organizer with visions of how it should be.

 

[Leo]

1861Navy, you are making a lot of assumptions in your thesis. While you make some legitimate points, some of the conclusions you either make or allude to are invalidated by the assumptions.

On a better note, you still shooting the old Colts cap and ball revolvers?

 

[Leo]

Give me a man/woman who has actually made a payroll for employees successfully over his/her lifetime over an organizer any day.

Someone that actually understands "HOW" the process works over an organizer with visions of how it should be.

+1