And that’s just at the federal level. Take Ralph Shortey, classic evil person, for example.

Those good old republicans. Gotta love em.

you really don't

Yeah, it's despicable how republicans can be so disgusting.

Like that Clinton girl, talking up the feminist angle but taking donations from oppressive anti-woman regimes in the middle east behind closed doors. Damn republicans.

Just gives House of Cards more material to work with.

@Croak

Many Dems can be shit and many Republicans can be shit too. The two aren't mutually exclusive

Correct. Which is why I think that people choosing to focus in on republican crimes with laser precision and overlook the majority of democrat ones is an interesting phenomenon of American politics.

Actually, the party in power at the current time is the one whose ability to abuse power is the greatest, so you should focus entirely on their crimes.

Not as big a deal if the Senate/Congress are split, or if the President's party doesn't control both the legislative and executive branches. A much bigger deal if the President's party control all three branches of government...

It is usual in parliamentary democracy to find the party in power loses popularity, no matter what. Someone who voted for them will be unhappy with them not living up to certain promises (you can't please everyone all of the time). And outside of two-party systems, there are usually options on both sides - so you can break to the left or right of the party in power...

Don't worry C&D, there are plenty of people capable and willing to focus entirely on what they regard as the faults and "crimes" of Democrats and ignore the same behaviour in Republicans. .No one group has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

All polticians can be terrible, however the modern conservative ideology is better than the modern loberal ideology.

Some democrats are corrupt.
Some republicans are corrupt.
More republicans than democrats are hypocrites.

That is an opinion not a fact.

But another entire thread attacking a group that goes untouched by the mods.

Politicians aren’t people.

With attitudes like that no wonder it's hard to get good people to run for office.

You mean my statement?

Good people run for office, but it's hard for them to get elected because they won't go as low as the scum that gets elected. That's why you hear about the hypocrites when they get caught.

Well, the admins and moderators have a leftist bias, KansasBoyd. That's not news.

The thread isn’t attacking Republicans as a whole though, it’s calling out politicians as hypocrites.

That would be true if it weren't called "Republican Family Values" and the first words of the thread weren't; "It doesn't apply to them in private."

As it stands, though, it's a gross generalisation about a group of people who the majority here seem to vilify. But hey, discrimination isn't bad when the left does it, so it's okay.

It's not like posters (mostly one) have repeatedly called conservatives "racists, white supremecists, knuckledraggers, inbred" etc and Americans as "a-holes" and nothing is done.

But of course "more republicans than democrats are hypocrites"

Whatever we do, let's definitely avoid having a sensible discussion about ways that the rules about political donations, fund raising etc, the activities of paid political lobbyists are regulated, in order to improve the democratic process and system. The technologies now exist that would make possible much better, much quicker public disclosure of political donations, but let's avoid implementation at all costs.

I assume that I am allowed, within certain limits, to mock, criticise and satarise whoever I choose, including Conservatives. Or are they "special" and a "protected species" ?

Plus, imho, suggesting that the admins & Almighty Mods have a leftist bias, is both innacurate & untruthful. It could be regarded, imho, as a form of vilification in itself. I'm expressing my opinion, not necessarily making a statement of fact.

At the least, such a suggestion is, imho, unhelpful

Get money out of politics by rejecting the corporatist stance of internationalism.

Go ahead. Mock, criticise and satirise to your heart's content, but know that the rules allegedly disallow the making of "threads or posts that are abusive or degrading toward another member, group of members, or other groups of people." I don't really agree with that rule - I think people should have tougher skins in general, but if such a rule is going to be selectively enforced you can't expect people just to ignore that injustice.

It's neither inaccurate or untruthful to state observable facts.

I don't agree that pointing out partisanship is necessarily unhelpful.

To be fair, it isn't the mods who have a liberal bias, but the code. Any code that makes hate speech out of bounds will have a liberal bias, because hate has a conservative bias.

I can attest that the mods don't have a liberal bias. They got very upset by a statement that racists should be swept from the earth and complaints about "christofascists" also

“Get money out of politics by rejecting the corporatist stance of internationalism.”

That so aggressively solves precisely nothing that I don’t know where to begin in talking about the things it doesn’t solve.

“Any code that makes hate speech out of bounds will have a liberal bias, because hate has a conservative bias. ”

This is just a plain false statement.

There is just plenty of hate from the left and antifa and to claim otherwise is just plain ignorant.

Limit contributions to citizens. Foreign governments can interfere, corporations can't interfere. Only those who can vote in elections can spend money influencing it

Put in reasonable limits per person.

Done

“Foreign governments can interfere”

???

I find it funny how people get up in arms thinking about how Russia MIGHT have interfered in the US Elections but have had no problems with the US interfering in elections around the world when the Democrats were in charge.

They just can't face the facts that no matter how bad a choice Trump was, Clinton was an even worse choice.

The Dems had most of the major news outlets behind them, all of Hollywood and the Music Industry behind them and they still managed to bungle it and lost an unlosable election.

But instead of putting on their big boy pants and admitting their faults, they cry and claim racism is what lost the election. You know, those racist states like PA, OH, WI and IA that voted for Obama the last two elections.

That would be true if it weren't called "Republican Family Values" and the first words of the thread weren't; "It doesn't apply to them in private."

Republicans are a group, but the individuals to whom 'it doesn't apply... in private' are that group's representatives.

They are people who choose to put themselves in the spotlight, as public representatives, they are expected to have be held to higher standards. Criticising them for hypocrisy isn't against the forum rules, at least as i understand them.

If you disagree, please contact the mods.

Republicans in general have run for decades on a family values platform. After the Kennedy clan's infidelities came out, the Democrats haven't tried. So criticizing Republicans running publicly for these values while so many have been outed for not following them in private, isn't a violation.

@"I find it funny how people get up in arms thinking about how Russia MIGHT have interfered in the US Elections but have had no problems with the US interfering in elections around the world when the Democrats were in charge."

I find it entirely un funny, when you construct a straw man like this, instead of talking to the people - right here on the forum - who you imagine think like this... but infact don't.

You project your favourite ideas onto them so they seem like idiots, and thus you feel better about yourself and your views (whether they are better or not) because you've imagined a non-existance opponent; like when the very same opponents are posting in this thread!

So pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats is a strawman in response to a statement that Republicans are far more hypocritical???

Huh?

Remember when this thread was humorous?

Sorry, that's a typo. Foreign governments CAN'T interfere.

And when it comes to interfering in foreign goverments, that's a bipartisan thing. Keep in mind, Bush deposed two governments, and interfered in a number of elections (e.g., in Venezuela) not to mention all the coups done by Reagan and Nixon etc going back more than 100 years.

In fact, generally Democrats are a lot less keen on this sort of regime change business.

@Randomizer, the "family values" has little to do with family values and everything to do with having a euphemism for sexism and homophobia as core planks of the Republican party platform.

"In fact, generally Democrats are a lot less keen on this sort of regime change business."

LOL!!!!

Panama in 1941
S. Korea in the late 40's
Syria in 1949
They tried in Cuba in 1961
Brazil in 1964
Dominican Republic 1965
Libya in 2011

No, I don't remember when this thread was humorous.