Why do you always call Mr. Trump names Obama was never called, any bad names like buffoon or spineless?
A good friend of mine is a staunch conservative. He lives in Texas, I live in suburban Washington.Awhile back, a few days after Sean Spicer's Hitler gaffe, I posted some gifs (hard g) of the Press Secretary himself. He was very quick to denounce liberals for making a big deal about the slip-of-the-tongue:Meanwhile…What I'm trying to point out here is that these arguments that “We never did x to Obama” are unfair and largely untrue. I can refute the OP claim right now:Another point that's tossed around is the vehemence with which people protest Trump, arguing there were no such things against Obama.As a rule of thumb, any derogatory terms hurled against one candidate have probably been hurled at the other, both by the extremes of the respective parties. I like to think of it as a manifestation of the Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia. To claim otherwise - that your side has not hurled insults at the other - is silly and to say that your party hasn't done so demonstrates a very deeply-ingrained bias that highlights an underlying, simple-minded failure to consider that your party might not be infallible. I accept that there are plenty of liberals who have stepped out of line in their insults and acidic remarks. I like to think that I'm not one of them.The way the question is worded suggests OP either does not understand fully the nastiness of the political arena or holds a particularly strong disdain for Democrats. I suspect the latter; anyone seeking to maintain an air of impartiality would have chosen more neutral wording.So, to answer the question in the OP?Why do you always call Mr. Trump names Obama was never called, any bad names like “spineless” or “buffoon”?I haven't. And neither has anyone else. Because those names were used. Now, I'd like to lodge a question for OP:Why do you always call liberals names without considering that maybe they could apply to you and your party too?EDIT: 4/28 12:13 AM Pacific
The White Side of the Black Story BUCHANAN TO OBAMA By Patrick J. Buchanan. What is your opinion of Mr. Buchanan's take on this issue? I am not saying I agree with him nor have I verified his statistics. I want to know your opinion of what he wrote.
Prof Hyttel, Like Pat Buchanan I am a right wing conservative [however not a Republican] and I would not blame you for the slavery issue we had in America prior to [and even for a while after] the Civil War. I would agree that America was not the best place for African Americans when they were originally uprooted from their homes, but there are two groups you have ignored in your diatribe.These two groups were suppliers of potential slaves; Arab slave traders and the African tribes themselves Both these groups profited mightily as well as the North and South divisions of the United states. The difference between America and the slave selling groups are that in America TODAY the African-American has an equal standing with any other ethnic group and even during the 19th Century not all African-Americans were slaves. If Frederick Douglass were alive today I doubt if he would agree with your appraisal. Unfortunately, Muslim Arabs have NOT given up their affinity for slavery as recent headlines tied to the Saudi's have proven. Africa itself is not any Utopian Paradise when you consider today's bloodshed of innocents during the many Genocides still being perpetrated [most Black on Black]. Today Black Americans need not fear for their lives due to Genocide or Slavery in the United States. They do need to worry for their lives when it comes to Black on Black crime that this Socialistic Administration [along with its lackeys in the Lame Stream Media] ignores along with you. The ONLY inequalities in effect today are due to the decline of the Black family group (73% of babies born out of wedlock); lack of education due to drop-outs (can make more money dealing drugs) and the continual stirring of the Racial pot by their so called leaders; Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder & Barack Obama who choose to promote Trayvon Martin type cases as race related [which it was not] instead of trying to resolve the real problematic issues.Finally I whole-hardheartedly disagree with your "...the United States is a class society...". I understand your views but you and your Socialist and Progressive friends NEED this to be true in order to effectively Re-distribute the wealth and make sure that you and yours occupy the top slots. Classes do NOT exist in a Free Republic like America and that's what separates [or did separate] us from Europe. I think you have been listening to [and even worse believing in] Barrack Obama attempting to re-define America into a class system.
What do conservatives think about the liberal argument which states that gerrymandering is the reason for the right’s political victories?
Personally, I have a hard time having sympathy for this argument.First of all, Democrats have been gerrymandering to their advantage for decades. What has given the Republicans so much power, that they could suddenly gerrymander to Republican advantage? It’s simple: Democrats have been losing power in State legislatures and governorships, and Republicans have suddenly found themselves creating voting district maps.This can even be seen in governorships and Federal Senate elections: Republicans have been winning these, too, and since these are Statewide elections, the liberal argument that these are because of gerrymandering falls flat.Several answers here talk about Republicans “disenfranchising” potential Democrat voters in the name of fraud prevention. Again, how do these policies get in place? I would propose two reasons: first, Republicans get in power, and second: while Democrats protest until they are blue in the face that fraud never happens, they never make it clear why something as simple as requiring a government ID would affect the outcome of an election if fraud never happens, particularly since in this day and age, everyone needs a government ID to function normally, and since they aren’t all that difficult to obtain.Frankly, I also think this concern is misplaced. If Democrats really want extra seats, they need to make a better case that they deserve power. I am a strong libertarian conservative, and so I naturally want Libertarians in power. If I could convince my State to gerrymander a district so that Libertarians can have a seat in Congress (whether in the State or in the Federal level), I’m not going to jump up and down with joy and excitement: what is one Representative going to do, to convince the rest of the Legislative body, to actually adopt Libertarian policies? Might as well have a Stark Raving Mad Monster party, for all the good it would do!No, if Democrats really want power, they need to convince their constituents that they actually deserve power, and obtain that power through the rules and the system as they currently are — and if they really think that the rules are unfair, they need to come up with a good argument on how to create a fairer system, one that is clearly more fair to Republicans and Democrats alike (oh, heck, why not go ahead and include the Libertarians while we’re at it, just for fun?), rather than pine for the days that they had power, because they could gerrymander their districts to their hearts’ content.
Should I recind my support for Obama? Not enough moral fortitude to press for justice?
Condoleezza Rice, the former US secretary of State, has rejected claims she approved the use of torture when she was US national security adviser. Rice, who held the positions under the administration of George Bush, the former US president, triggered controversy recently when she said at Stanford University that if torture techniques including water boarding were authorised by Bush, then they were not illegal. Asked by Al Jazeera whether she stood by her remarks, Rice said: "Let me be very clear: The president [George Bush] said he would not authorise anything that was illegal. "It was not legal because he authorised it; it was because he said he would do nothing illegal and the justice department and the attorney general said that it was legal." 'Serious problem' Recent congressional declassified documents have shown that Rice approved the CIA plan to water board detainees - applying the technique of simulated drowning on them. Hillary Mann Leverett, a former US diplomat, told Al Jazeera: "Either way this is a serious problem for her. "In the documents ... that have been declassified, it is her name that is there - either authorising or, as she puts it, conveying the authorisation. "But conveying the authorisation from whom? She only worked for one person," Leverett said. Legal immunity Mark Taylor, an international law expert, said paper trails and approval processes showed there was "high [level] approval given for those interrogations". He said prosecuting those responsible would "depend on whether the attorney general is willing to pursue the case". Barack Obama, the US president, has said water boarding is torture but former Bush administration officials have maintained it was not and that use of the technique prevented attacks on the US. The Obama administration has left the door open to prosecute those who authorised torture, but has said it will not charge people who carried out orders to use torture. Obama recently assured CIA operatives that they would be granted legal immunity with respect to water boarding.