• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can we have a different thread for all these right-wing conspiracies? It feels like there is a conspiracy for every single newsworthy action right now.

Franken is resigning because he SHOULD.

As opposed to the usual daily diet of left-wing conspiracies for every single newsworthy action?



He's resigning because of pressure from other Democrats, and the pressure is this intense because they know that he's going to be replaced by another Democrat. There's no downside to booting him. Same with Conyers.

If the Moore revelations came before the primary, he wouldn't have been nominated. If they came after he was elected, he'd be booted and there'd be a special election to fill out his term. That's what will happen with both Franken and Conyers - there will be another set of primaries, two new nominees, and then a general election for voters to pick new representatives next year.

But because the information about Moore "happened" to break in that short period between the primary and the election, there won't be another special election. There's just this election, and the seat would get handed to Jones by default until 2021, with the voters being told that's Jones is the choice they have to make because Moore is a scumbag.

Which is why I don't believe voters who say "I'd rather just pick again in 2018" are making an immoral choice. Being compelled to help elect someone's whose morality-based political views are the antithesis of your own isn't a "moral" choice either.

pr: can we have another thread for right-wing conspiracy theories?

Qtip: what about... doubles down on conspiracy theory.

Trump is really fucking republicans heads up right now.
 
I hope he does destroy the GOP. It's a useless party that can barely govern while controlling both Congress and the presidency.

I don't think many Americans would be crying if both parties were broken. Ideally it can be pushed to the point where the major parties have to adjust to the will of the voters rather than lobbyists, but who knows what will/would go down if Trump got impeached.



BTW, I know he can't see this but I think Q's idea that the best option is to elect a pedophile and then hope that the party backing him will oust him (When was the last time that happened with an unwilling senator?) is morally repugnant. He's literally just saying that the seat is supposed to be Republican even if the GOP chooses a fucking pedophile. He's ignoring that many supporters believe the accusers are liars paid by the Dems. Somehow, it's a miscarriage of Democracy to let a Democrat be a Senator in Alabama, but not if Alabama elects a pedophile to that same seat. And it's incredibly naive to assume the GOP will do jack shit about Moore once he's in office. If he's still carrying the Republican vote as of now, then they made their choice. They are choosing to either ignore, excuse, or pretend away the accusations.

If you don't believe that personal morality should trump someone's political policy, I suppose that CAN make sense. In this instance it's beyond the pale. He, the leaders of the GOP, and our president are all in agreement that a single political victory matters more than morality. It matters more than the victims of a predator. Got it, understood.
 
I don't think many Americans would be crying if both parties were broken. Ideally it can be pushed to the point where the major parties have to adjust to the will of the voters rather than lobbyists, but who knows what will/would go down if Trump got impeached.



BTW, I know he can't see this but I think Q's idea that the best option is to elect a pedophile and then hope that the party backing him will oust him (When was the last time that happened with an unwilling senator?) is morally repugnant. He's literally just saying that the seat is supposed to be Republican even if the GOP chooses a fucking pedophile. He's ignoring that many supporters believe the accusers are liars paid by the Dems. Somehow, it's a miscarriage of Democracy to let a Democrat be a Senator in Alabama, but not if Alabama elects a pedophile to that same seat. And it's incredibly naive to assume the GOP will do jack shit about Moore once he's in office. If he's still carrying the Republican vote as of now, then they made their choice. They are choosing to either ignore, excuse, or pretend away the accusations.

If you don't believe that personal morality should trump someone's political policy, I suppose that CAN make sense. In this instance it's beyond the pale. He, the leaders of the GOP, and our president are all in agreement that a single political victory matters more than morality. It matters more than the victims of a predator. Got it, understood.
Yeah, I don't agree with the elect and then oust strategy. If their plan is to get rid of him then that shows that they believe the accusers and they believe that he's a pedophile. They'd be supporting someone who they think is a child predator just so that they can win the seat. Throwing their support behind him if they think he's innocent makes sense, but doing it if they think he's guilty is just gross.
 
BTW the White House stated that they don't have a problem with businesses discriminating against gay people. But you can just toss that one in the pile. Reminder, some people are so stupid they thought Trump was going to be good for LGBT people.
 
BTW the White House stated that they don't have a problem with businesses discriminating against gay people. But you can just toss that one in the pile. Reminder, some people are so stupid they thought Trump was going to be good for LGBT people.

I'm going to have the unpopular opinion of completely siding with 'the cake maker' in the latest 'big' LGBT dispute.

I'm pretty libertarian in my views regarding what a privately-owned business that sells non-essential goods can and can't do.
 
I'm going to have the unpopular opinion of completely siding with 'the cake maker' in the latest 'big' LGBT dispute.

I'm pretty libertarian in my views regarding what a privately-owned business that sells non-essential goods can and can't do.

Doesn't really belong here, but I assume this means you believe there is and should be a difference in terms of discrimination policies between race and sexual orientation? Or would you also be fine with letting racists run their cake shops how they want?
 
I'm going to have the unpopular opinion of completely siding with 'the cake maker' in the latest 'big' LGBT dispute.

I'm pretty libertarian in my views regarding what a privately-owned business that sells non-essential goods can and can't do.

Cool for Muslim bakers to turn away Christians? Just wondering where the line is. Isn't that the problem?
 
pr: can we have another thread for right-wing conspiracy theories?

Qtip: what about... doubles down on conspiracy theory.

What "conspiracy theory"? Do you actually believe that the certainty that Franken will be replaced by a Democrat has no effect at all on how other Democrats are treating this?

I'm completely open about both sides taking politics into account when addressing these kind of issues. When Bill Clinton was impeached, there were feminists on the left who openly stated that they were supporting him despite the allegations because of his stances on other issues of great importance to them.

The same thing is happening with Moore on the GOP end -- the prospect of who will replace him is unquestionably impacting the GOP reaction. That's no conspiracy theory -- there are Republicans advocating that openly. When Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina was busted with his Argentinian side-action, Republicans turned on him instantly. Why? Because it was South Carolina, and they knew he'd be replaced by a Republican. In that case, Nikki Haley.

But in your world, it's just Republicans who act like that. Anyone who suggests that Democrat morals are just as situationally dependent (which is not necessarily a perjorative) as GOP morals is pushing a "conspiracy".
 
Last edited:
Its an ethical black hole.
The GOP is funding ads right now telling Alabama voters that Roy Moore is the best choice for Senate.
If they plan on ousting him because they think he is unfit for office, they are flat out lying to the people.

Eh?

You can think a guy is unfit, and still think he's the best choice. It all depends on what you think about the other guy, and the longer-term repercussions. I've run through this thought experiment before, but I'll try again. Try changing up the parties a bit.

Let's say that this would be the vote that would enable single-payer health insurance to pass. If you vote for the guy who did what Moore did, then replace him, single-payer health care passes. If you vote for the other guy, single-payer health care fails, and might not happen against for decades (think about how close the 2010 Obamacare votes were, and how fleeting that supermajority was).

Do you think the most "moral" position is to throw out single-payer healthcare? Is that really the lesser evil than putting in a scumbag and then booting him? To me, that sounds a lot more like moral vanity and virtue-signalling than moral reasoning.
 
Its an ethical black hole.
The GOP is funding ads right now telling Alabama voters that Roy Moore is the best choice for Senate.
If they plan on ousting him because they think he is unfit for office, they are flat out lying to the people.
Gotta wonder what their strategy is for this. If their plan is to oust him that gives democrats in 2018, and it also alienates republican voters who would have their vote nullified.
 
HYPOCRITE: Pelosi Condemns Trump's Jerusalem Move. She Voted For It In 1995,

On Wednesday, in response to President Trump's announcement that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and intended to move its embassy there, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the measure, saying, "In the absence of a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem now may needlessly spark mass protests, fuel tensions, and make it more difficult to reach a durable peace."

Yet in October 1995, Pelosi voted for the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which required the move of the embassy without precondition of a negotiated settlement, as there was no mention of any settlement. It stated:

Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected; Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.



Another liberal changing their public stance for votes.
 
Cool for Muslim bakers to turn away Christians? Just wondering where the line is. Isn't that the problem?

I'm glad you asked that.

Yes, I think it's cool for them to do that.

To me, the line is whether or not the business is entirely privately-owned and operated, and whether said business provides direct access to life/health.

An orthodontist should not be able to discriminate based on these things, for example. Doctors all take an oath to serve as well. That last bit is where the gray area in my position lies.

Things like generic goods and services (like this cake thing), however, I think the business owner can choose to serve or not serve whomever he or she pleases, period. Let society and the market rule over said business's success or failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top