|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 2, 2017 11:26:53 GMT -5
I think it's a stupid transparent hit piece--from a highly partisan source at that--because it's finding fault with Flake for going along with Trump as a means to criticize a piece where Flake is saying "look, we've been wrong to go along with Trump." Again, pretty honest introspection imo, a rare thing in Congress. Yeah, I can see you find that "pretty honest introspection" but then you're "a highly partisan source" too, so you would view Flake as some sort of Profile In Courage instead of the typical right-wing Republican lemming his voting record indicates he has been. And by the way? Being "partisan" does not by default mean you're wrong. The National Review isn't Daily Kos or Media Matters, so you can bang that little tin drum that they wrote a hit piece if the noise makes you happy. It still doesn't make you right. Don't play with semantics. Trump doesn't vote on legislation, but Flake does and when it comes to legislation, presidential nominees, appointment confirmations, and so forth, Flake falls in line and votes the way Trump wants him to 95 percent of the time. If the Republican White House and Congress can't get their shit together to pass any "significant" legislation, that's their fault. That IS "some sort of a Big Deal" even if you don't agree it is. Numbers matter and facts mater more than your opinion is they don't. So Flake admits he's a sniveling sycophant who goes along to get along. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how that makes him a tower of integrity. All Flake has done is stuck a finger in the wind, determined with Trump's crappy approval ratings, now was as good a time as any to ride the wave of resentment and declare himself the conscience of the GOP caucus despite the fact he's done nothing to significantly differentiate himself from Trump. I'm cool with Flake and Trump spitting venom at each other, but that alone is not enough to catapult Flake into some sort of paragon of principle and virtue. Not when he's not backing up his tough talk with tougher deeds. All he is a guy trying to raise his national profile going into a tough reelection fight next year and he's found some pundits and political junkies who have been jonesing for a Republican to stand up and declare he hates Trump as much as they do. Flake is a Fake. If you're one of those folks who are more thrilled by lofty, high-minded rhetoric than they are with principled and concrete results, then Jeff Flake is your man and you can have him. Expressing your opinion doesn't concern me in the least. What does concern is when you slag a source and don't support your position. Not only not effectively, but not at all. If you choose to sit back and spit loogies at any perspective that differs from your own, there's nothing I can say except I'm perfectly fine with pointing out that's all you're doing and saying, " That's not an effective rebuttal. That's just a loogie."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 2, 2017 18:18:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see you find that "pretty honest introspection" but then you're "a highly partisan source" too, so you would view Flake as some sort of Profile In Courage instead of the typical right-wing Republican lemming his voting record indicates he has been. I don't know about a profile in courage, but I find Flake to be less of a sycophant than the typical Repub or Dem in Congress. National Review? You mean New Republic, right? Regardless, I hope you can remember your own words, here. Disagree. It's not imo, even if you imagine that it is. Maybe it will be meaningful when we're looking at a lot more legislation. Right now, it's a sample size that tells us almost nothing, apart from Repubs tending to vote with Repubs, and Dems tending to vote with Dems. *shrug*He's at least willing to admit he thinks he's been wrong, no? That's something, I think. You know, it almost seems like the hardcore anti-Trump crowd is turning into a crowd of music snobs. You know the types, right? People who are big fans of a niche band or genre, like to imagine they're "in the know," but get all bent out of shape when new people claim to be fans, as well. Again, if one doesn't like Trump--which is true of most of the folks at the New Republic, including the author of this piece--why wouldn't one welcome someone from the opposition who says "look, I've been wrong on this." Saying that it's just words right now, that such a person needs to follow through, is completely fair, though.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 2, 2017 20:37:09 GMT -5
Can speak for NT, obviously So I gather you would have been on team Collins/Murkowski and voted against the various GOP repeal options because of the process that produced them, and also voted against opening debate? Sure. But it doesn't cost me anything to say that, now. And I would never be a successful politician because I don't think I could do a good job weighing such costs (i.e. recognizing when my political future was tied to a particular vote). And I think you're being a little hyerbolic with the dead of night stuff. National Review? You mean New Republic, right? Regardless, I hope you can remember your own words, here. Sure I do. Just like I remember your words like not knowing the difference between "can" and "can't" or how to spell "hyperbolic." See, that's the problem with trying to piss on someone else's typos and errors. Suddenly, the wind shifts and you're peeing on your own leg. It's enough of a sample size to be analyzed and what the analysis demonstrates is how brown Jeff Flake's nose is from keeping it pressed up against Trump's asshole. Now you can wave it away and who'd be surprised because that's your way of dismissing facts you can't debunk, but the sad truth robeiae is it's your imagination running away with you to declare it's not meaningful. It's meaningful enough evidence of how slavishly Flake follows the Republican/right-wing party line and Donald Trump. It's meaningful enough for you to be flailing about trying to combat statistical evidence of Flake's voting coincides with Trump's wishes with cynical disdain. It's like bringing a squirt gun to put out a forest fire. Are you really trying to turn being a suck-up then admitting you are into a virtuous quality? Okay, you be you. Because who gives a shit if Flake wants to act like he's suddenly "woke" when he's been either a passive watcher or an active collaborator in the Rise of Trumpism? He went along with Trump until he saw it was possibly advantageous to not. Now that its obvious that Trump is every inch the horrid fuck-up the hardcore anti-Trump crowd tried to tell the smug smart-ass, self-styled seers who sniffed it would never come to pass but if it did surely Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan would keep the pussy-grabber from doing anything too terrible to contemplate. The hardcore anti-Trump crowd who doesn't like Trump has been proven right while the smart-ass self-styled seers are sobbing in their merlot. There's a certain advantage to being a snob--musical or political---when it means being ahead of the slobs who made up the masses which bypassed Bush, cruised by Cruz, dissed Christie, and ran from Rubio and instead rallied to a racist, sexist, xenophobic, ignoramus and swinish lout possessed by delusions of grandeur, lust for his own daughter, and little hands that grab private parts. If that's not enough reason enough to call out enablers like Flake for being " fake woke" and just another cheap politician on the hustle with grand dreams of one day occupying The Big Chair, it'll do until a better one comes along. I'll be sure to remind you you said that IF Flake survives his reelection bid in 2018 and goes on to become the Koch Brothers sock monkey in 2020 as the right-wing/libertarian challenger to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2017 8:48:32 GMT -5
Sure I do. Just like I remember your words like not knowing the difference between "can" and "can't" or how to spell "hyperbolic." See, that's the problem with trying to piss on someone else's typos and errors. Suddenly, the wind shifts and you're peeing on your own leg. Pardon, I wasn't trying to piss on anything. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something--like maybe a link to another story--when you said "National Review," so I asked, just to be sure it was a simple error, which of course is something that happens to all of us. ETA: And when I said "remember you own words," I was talking about this: "Being 'partisan' does not by default mean you're wrong."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 3, 2017 9:03:52 GMT -5
Are you really trying to turn being a suck-up then admitting you are into a virtuous quality? Okay, you be you. Well, I think the members of both parties in Congress have a tendency to follow party leadership, more often than not. Allowing that Trump is uniquely problematic, I would think, again, that having people in his--Trump's--own party publicly allow that their approach has been wrong, that they should be less willing to follow his lead, would be something that people on the left and deeply opposed to Trump would be happy to see. Doesn't mean it requires one to see Flake as a hero, at all; "good to see you finally wised up" would be enough, I think. But of course, the truth is that Flake is still a Repub, therefore he's still The Enemy, right? Any sort of compliment--or any comment that isn't critical--cannot be allowed, no matter what. Nietzsche is coming to mind, again.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 3, 2017 13:27:10 GMT -5
Sure I do. Just like I remember your words like not knowing the difference between "can" and "can't" or how to spell "hyperbolic." See, that's the problem with trying to piss on someone else's typos and errors. Suddenly, the wind shifts and you're peeing on your own leg. Pardon, I wasn't trying to piss on anything. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something--like maybe a link to another story--when you said "National Review," so I asked, just to be sure it was a simple error, which of course is something that happens to all of us. ETA: And when I said "remember you own words," I was talking about this: "Being 'partisan' does not by default mean you're wrong." Simple errors do happen all the time. And I did read a National Review piece on the topic, and David French's take was don't allow liberals to define how conservatives should challenge Trump. I'm fine with people remembering my words about partisans not being wrong by default. Because they're wrong because they're wrong. Not simply because they're partisans. Are you really trying to turn being a suck-up then admitting you are into a virtuous quality? Okay, you be you. Well, I think the members of both parties in Congress have a tendency to follow party leadership, more often than not. Allowing that Trump is uniquely problematic, I would think, again, that having people in his--Trump's--own party publicly allow that their approach has been wrong, that they should be less willing to follow his lead, would be something that people on the left and deeply opposed to Trump would be happy to see. Doesn't mean it requires one to see Flake as a hero, at all; "good to see you finally wised up" would be enough, I think. But of course, the truth is that Flake is still a Repub, therefore he's still The Enemy, right? Any sort of compliment--or any comment that isn't critical--cannot be allowed, no matter what. Nietzsche is coming to mind, again. Yeah, when I was going through my bourgeois intellectual stage, I read Beyond Good and Evil too and Nietzsche left an indelible impression upon my impressionable mind. I always liked this quote: “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”Too bad Jeff Flake must not have taken Nietzsche to heart as much as you and I did, huh? I never called Flake The Enemy. That's your hyperbolic description, not mine. I'm not here to compliment him. I'm here to point out his voting record and his inconsistencies and his hypocrisy. If and when Flake should choose to match his rhetoric with deeds, I'll be happy to compliment him. In fact, I'm pretty sure at another time and another place, I did just that. But that was then and this is now. Now he's just another Congresscritter loyal to Trump when it counts and talking shit about Trump when it's safe. That's not calling Flake "The Enemy." It's about calling him a fake.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 4, 2017 9:34:01 GMT -5
Nobody deeply invested in partisan politics can claim the wisdom of holding in high esteem those who think differently. I find the whole proposition laughable. There's no surer sign of a closed mind than "my party uber allies." Party politics is about "corrupting" youth, by that definition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 9:54:12 GMT -5
I think Flake's criticism of Trump is important and useful precisely BECAUSE he is unquestionably conservative and votes accordingly.
Trump and his supporters tend to write off all criticism of Trump as the unjustified hysterical smears of Democrats and liberals who just want to kill conservative policies.
But it's impossible to do that with Flake and conservatives like him. Clearly they like conservative policies and aren't trying to tear them down. Therefore, they must really have a problem with Trump himself.
Trump is dangerous and bad for the country in ways that go far beyond conservative policies (which the country can fight and change at the ballot box). At the very least, he needs to be contained. But to do that, much less impeach him, we need the more sober, responsible faction of Republicans and conservatives to stop sticking their heads in the sand and dismissing criticism of Trump as an overblown liberal conspiracy theory.
Rebukes, denouncements, and criticism from staunch conservatives will go a very long way towards bringing them around. Look at the numbers and be realistic -- we can't do much of anything without them, certainly not in the short term.
Do liberals really want to discourage the Flakes (and McCains, Collins, Murkowskis, etc) by sneering at them as hypocrites? Keep in mind that they are facing TREMENDOUS blowback from the Trump faction. Check out their twitter feeds. Alt-righters are cheering that McCain has cancer and hoping he dies soon and painfully. They're throwing rocks at Flake as a traitor. And you want to add to that from the liberal side? And then complain that there aren't enough Republican profiles in courage criticizing Trump?
At the very least, it is counter-productive. Do you want to get rid of Trump or at least check him, or do you want all opposition of Trump to come from a pure liberal base?
I guarantee you cannot have both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 10:29:16 GMT -5
To flip the situation with one of my infamous hypotheticals:
Let's say we have populist Democrat political figure Shady Von Blowhard. He's corrupt to the bone, but supports liberal causes, mostly because he's an opportunist, and doing so gave him a road to power. A fervent group of far-left radicals love Von Blowhard, while the moderate Democrats shut their eyes and hope for the best. But make no mistake -- without the moderates enabling him, Von Blowhard would tank. His far-left extremists are too few in number to keep him in office without their support.
Breitbart, Fox, and Ted Cruz scream that Von Blowhard is corrupt. Liberals and Dems laugh, because Breitbart, Fox and Cruz would throw rocks at Jesus if he were a Dem.
The Wall Street Journal and John McCain denounce Von Blowhard as corrupt. That's more of a concern, they are more centrist and sometimes cross the partisan line on issues, so moderate Dems take notice but still -- they both have a clear conservative lean, so they can still be dismissed.
Then Elizabeth Warren denounces Von Blowhard as corrupt.
Yeah, kinda hard to dismiss her as having a conservative bias. She has an impeccable record of supporting liberal causes and legislation. Her objection is clearly not partisan, so she must really think Von Blowhard is corrupt. Moderate democrat Von Blowhard defenders will at least think long and hard about whether she has a point.
ETA:
So -- would conservatives who think von Blowhard is corrupt and dangerous, and who want to convince moderate Democrats of the same, be better served by throwing rocks at Sen. Warren as a hypocrite who consistently votes liberal and whose voice should therefore should be dismissed?
Or by pointing at her and saying -- "see? Even the leftest of all lefties thinks Von Blowhard is corrupt. It's not partisan hysteria. Von Blowhard is scum."
I submit the latter is the approach liberals would be wise to take with Flake.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 4, 2017 15:07:34 GMT -5
Nobody deeply invested in partisan politics can claim the wisdom of holding in high esteem those who think differently. I find the whole proposition laughable. There's no surer sign of a closed mind than "my party uber allies." Party politics is about "corrupting" youth, by that definition. Anyone who has carried water as long and with the degree of faithful dedication as you have for the dubious likes of Ron Paul and the Koch Brothers has zero credibility when it comes to speechifying about "partisan politics" so you can drag your soapbox back into the garage you dragged it out of. Game recognizes game and yours is very familiar, Don. I think Flake's criticism of Trump is important and useful precisely BECAUSE he is unquestionably conservative and votes accordingly. Trump and his supporters tend to write off all criticism of Trump as the unjustified hysterical smears of Democrats and liberals who just want to kill conservative policies. But it's impossible to do that with Flake and conservatives like him. Clearly they like conservative policies and aren't trying to tear them down. Therefore, they must really have a problem with Trump himself. Trump is dangerous and bad for the country in ways that go far beyond conservative policies (which the country can fight and change at the ballot box). At the very least, he needs to be contained. But to do that, much less impeach him, we need the more sober, responsible faction of Republicans and conservatives to stop sticking their heads in the sand and dismissing criticism of Trump as an overblown liberal conspiracy theory. Rebukes, denouncements, and criticism from staunch conservatives will go a very long way towards bringing them around. Look at the numbers and be realistic -- we can't do much of anything without them, certainly not in the short term. Says you. I'm fine with rebukes, denouncements and criticism from staunch conservatives of Trump, but at the end of the day I'm not going to count on them to get rid of Trump. Maybe you do, but I don't to do what I have to do to bring this to pass. This sounds too much like the post-election b.s. of " We have to reach out to the people who voted for Trump. We have to understand them." We do? Are you French? Where you getting this "we" shit from? I don't have to do that and I won't do that because I don't CARE why Trump voters voted for Trump. They go piss up a rope as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in getting those who didn't vote at all or voted for Obama but stayed home for Clinton to wake up and fight back. Why waste time trying to drag back aboard those who jumped off the train? Eff 'em. That's my problem with Democrats. They expend more energy chasing the one that left them and take for granted the one still with them. You are laboring under a delusion Cassandra. You really believe there is a silent majority, a hidden groundswell of sober, responsible Republicans and conservatives that will rise up and join with sober, reasonable Democrats and liberals to repudiate Trump once and for all. Two words: Dream. On. Oh, it's a nice dream and it would be better for America if came to pass, but it won't. We're too Balkanized. Too fractured. Too broken. It isn't, it wasn't and it ain't never gonna be. You are waiting for a bus that is never coming. Those sober, responsible Republicans and conservatives didn't rise up when Trump announced he was entering the race. They didn't rise up when he demonized Mexicans or Muslims or women or any other non-White/non-wealthy/non-male group. They didn't rise up when he bullied and blustered and bullshitted during the debates. They didn't rise up at the rioting during the rallies and the chants of "Lock her up!" They didn't rise up when the GOP establishment shied away from the Republican National Convention like scalded dogs. They didn't rise up when "grab 'em by the pussy" dropped on their ears. They haven't risen up at all. What makes you think they will now? Why are you lumping Flake in with McCain, Collins and Murkowski? He didn't thwart Trump and the GOP Senate majority by voting against their crappy bill. He played good soldier and he was all too glad to foist that monstrosity upon the American people. Where is all this love for Jeff Flake coming from? Because he wrote a book most people will never read? Whoopity-damn-do! It's McCain, Collins and Murkowski who did the heavy lifting here, but you want to give credit to Flake for doing...well NOTHING really. Liberals are so starved for something-- anything--that even vaguely looks like a Republican who isn't batshit crazy that they're fawning over Flake like teenage girls over a pop singer. Blech! I don't give a crap what the alt-right cheers about or which Republican they're throwing rocks at. The GOP curried favor with the alt-right. They wooed them. They sang serenades. They co-opted their language and refined it. Now if the the alt-right is turning around and biting the hand that fed them all the way up to the elbow this is a their problem, not a my problem. The Right made this devil's bargain and if the devil has come to collect, why should I step in the middle of it? Pass. I don't expect all the opposition to Trump to come from a purely liberal base, though it would be okay by me if it did. Where did this silly notion come from that it's always the Left that has to nuzzle up and make nicey-nice with the other side come from? I don't recall a single conservative offer to pick up my bar tab after Obama waxed their butts twice. What I expect of the Jeff Flakes types is to put some bite behind their bark and actually DO something that demonstrates their is a Republican resistance to Trumpism. What I expect is if conservatives do the right thing, they'll do it out of their own self-interest because if they don't Trump is going to destroy every last shred of credibility they have. They'll do it to save their own asses. Not because the Left had to be nice to Jeff Flake and rushed out to buy copies of Conscience of A Conservative to give out as Xmas stocking stuffers. That's okay. I don't need both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 16:02:34 GMT -5
If your priority is casting out the impure from the resist Trump movement, so be it.
Mine is to get Trump the hell out of the White House sooner rather than later, and to contain the damage to the extent possible while he's there.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 4, 2017 17:20:28 GMT -5
Here's a bad analogy for you NT:
Your house is on fire. Your arch-enemy, who is a total jerk, stole from you, lied to you, screwed your girlfriend, and insulted your dog, happens to be a fireman.* He shows up with two other firemen and sets to work putting out your house fire.
You hate him, understandably, legitimately, but he's helping to put out the fire. Would you immediately haul him off the ladder, yank the hose from his hand, and start pummeling him, or would you wait and kill him later, after the fire is out?
*firemen aren't actually like this. It's unpossible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 18:55:04 GMT -5
To tweak it slightly -- there's a huge fire raging out of control. You need as many bodies as you can get to help put the fire out, or else it will spread, killing more people and destroying more homes. You and your friends probably won't be able to stop it without help -- certainly not before it does much more damage.
Do you welcome every person who is willing to help you put out the fire, or do you say "nyah, you're an asshole. Fuck you and your "help."
Or do you work together on putting out the fire, and work out the other stuff separately?
The analogy still isn't perfect because you can continue to oppose Flake's conservative policies to your heart's content. I suggest not that liberals stop doing that -- only that they join hands with him on this one particular point (or at least don't throw rocks at him for it). Use it -- "this isn't about partisan malice -- Flake is as conservative as can be and he thinks Trump is awful."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 4, 2017 19:27:19 GMT -5
If your priority is casting out the impure from the resist Trump movement, so be it. Mine is to get Trump the hell out of the White House sooner rather than later, and to contain the damage to the extent possible while he's there. How's that working out for ya? My priority is the same as yours. Get Trump the hell out of the White House sooner than later. But I'm not going to lie down with today's enemy because they may be tomorrow's friend. Jeff Flake is the father of Tanner Flake, a.k.a. "niggerkiller" and if I had a son like that, I'd beat his ass. Are the sins of the son visited upon the father? Probably not, but that kind of ignorance doesn't come out of the ether. Either someone taught Tanner Flake it was cool to go online and spew hatred toward Blacks, Mexicans and gays or they didn't tell theim it was wrong. Either way I don't forget shit like that and I sure don't forgive it. You can because it never mattered to you. But then I'm not you. Here's a bad analogy for you NT: Your house is on fire. Your arch-enemy, who is a total jerk, stole from you, lied to you, screwed your girlfriend, and insulted your dog, happens to be a fireman.* He shows up with two other firemen and sets to work putting out your house fire. You hate him, understandably, legitimately, but he's helping to put out the fire. Would you immediately haul him off the ladder, yank the hose from his hand, and start pummeling him, or would you wait and kill him later, after the fire is out? *firemen aren't actually like this. It's unpossible. I agree, Christine. It's a bad analogy. I don't hate Jeff Flake. But that doesn't mean have to I love him either. This is a one-week love affair. Two tops. By this time in a week or two the news cycle and the pundits will move on to yet another Republican talking shit about Trump. Why not? Trump's popularity is in the crapper at 36 percent. Any president that low this early has no juice on Capitol Hill and there is little fear in shit-talking Trump. But talking shit about Trump is not the same thing as doing shit about Trump. As if a freaking book by an obscure senator is going to grease the skids to the end of Trumpism and a return to rationality about Republicans. That's a wish and wishes without plans are dreams. I'll leave the cock-eyed optimism that Flake is a serious challenge to Trump to others laboring under the impression yet another politician writing a self-aggrandizing book means jack. To tweak it slightly -- there's a huge fire raging out of control. You need as many bodies as you can get to help put the fire out, or else it will spread, killing more people and destroying more homes. You and your friends probably won't be able to stop it without help -- certainly not before it does much more damage. Do you welcome every person who is willing to help you put out the fire, or do you say "nyah, you're an asshole. Fuck you and your "help." Or do you work together on putting out the fire, and work out the other stuff separately? The analogy still isn't perfect because you can continue to oppose Flake's conservative policies to your heart's content. I suggest not that liberals stop doing that -- only that they join hands with him on this one particular point (or at least don't throw rocks at him for it). Use it -- "this isn't about partisan malice -- Flake is as conservative as can be and he thinks Trump is awful." You have fun with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 19:45:23 GMT -5
I was also a cock-eyed optimist that John McCain was a "no" on skinny repeal.
I'll keep my cock-eyed optimism, if that's what you want to call it. You have fun doing your thing, too.
ETA:
I hate Sean Hannity with a passion, and think him loathsome in every way. I've been participating in the anti-Hannity boycott; I want his ass fired for the Seth Rich thing. I can't hear him or see his pucture without my blood pressure rising.
If tomorrow he announced he believed Trump was corrupt and incompetent and shouldn't be president, I wouldn't like him one bit better. I wouldn't start listening to his show and I sure as hell wouldn't be inviting him to dinner.
But I also sure as hell wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, sneering "pfft, he's a damn hypocrite, probably he'll change his mind tomorrow. Hell, no. I'd be grabbing every Trump-supporter I could find and saying "Even Hannity thinks he shouldn't be president!" And it would do a hell of a lot more towards convincing them than Elizabeth Warren's condemnation. And the more people who feel that way, the more likely we don't have him as president for eight years.
You call it cock-eyed optimism, I call it practicality.
By the way, after writing that book, Flake has cooked his goose in the Republican party unless Trumpism is defeated. He actually laid a lot more on the line by criticizing Trump than any Democrat has in doing so -- Democrats can only gain by it. Either he sways people, or his political career is over. But call it cowardice and hypocrisy if you will.
|
|