France vs. Russia

[RINO Tom]

WHAT THE , lol, obviously France!!

[RINO Tom]

France has better food, a better government, gives its citizens more freedom, has an infinitely better culture and has the greatest city in the world.  The fact that this is even a contest and a frozen hellhole of human rights violations run by a dictator (not to mention a country that spend decades as our sworn enemy and is clearly trying to get back to such a status) is close to France is mind boggling.

Theocracy above all else, right guys?!

[RINO Tom]

France has better food, a better government, gives its citizens more freedom, has an infinitely better culture and has the greatest city in the world.  The fact that this is even a contest and a frozen hellhole of human rights violations run by a dictator (not to mention a country that spend decades as our sworn enemy and is clearly trying to get back to such a status) is close to France is mind boggling.

This explains so much.

No way you'll be man enough to explain what you're trying to say (ironic), but why don't you go ahead and articulate what you mean by that?

[RINO Tom]

France has better food, a better government, gives its citizens more freedom, has an infinitely better culture and has the greatest city in the world.  The fact that this is even a contest and a frozen hellhole of human rights violations run by a dictator (not to mention a country that spend decades as our sworn enemy and is clearly trying to get back to such a status) is close to France is mind boggling.

Theocracy above all else, right guys?!

MUH FREEDUMB over MUH COMMUNISTS

I know 90% of your posts on this forum are one liners about politicians you hate or mocking someone's post with "MUH _____," but seriously what on Earth does this even mean?  For one, yes, giving your citizens basic liberties and freedoms is inherently better than communism in my view.  Duh.  However, the more mind-boggling part of your response is that I listed several reasons that I considered France a more endearing country than RUSSIA (LOL, seriously, what the hell is this thread?!), and you chose to ... well, type what you did.  Just strange.

France is a gorgeous country with kind people (actually met several of them on multiple visits rather than rely on hearsay from Americans who were probably rude to them first and/or made ZERO effort to respect the fact that they were guests in a foreign country and just walk up and start speaking English), a rich culture and a marvelous city in Paris.  If that makes me a "corporatist" or "statist" (seriously, Santender, what are you smoking these days?), then those words mean absolutely nothing at all, LOL.  Paris has an "it" factor and an atmosphere about it that struck me as truly special compared to other cities I've had the pleasure to visit.  As corny as it sounds, the movie "Midnight in Paris" (which is hilarious and awesome) and Hemingway's writing about the city (why do you think all of our badass American writers and actors hung out in Paris in the Roarin' Twenties?!) actually do capture the essence of the city pretty well.

I'll accept ignorance to ... Russia ... but this shouldn't be a competition.

[RINO Tom]

If you find yourself constantly having to ask why most conservatives and Republicans have a different worldview than you, maybe it's time to stop calling yourself a conservative or a Republican.

Dude, I know you're not this stupid.  "Worldview"??  As if all self-described conservatives have the same view on food, travel and entertainment?!  Jesus Christ, GMAFB.  (Do conservatives swear?!  Have we decided?!?!)

Seriously, a conservative from Maine might love seafood, the cold weather, hiking and a rural setting.  A conservative from the exurbs of Oklahoma City might love BBQ and think seafood is disgusting, find hiking a waste of time and think a small town would be boring.  Even on this forum, you'd have RFayette and Cathcon disagree vehemently about the type of region they'd probably prefer to live in one day, as well as the daily activities and hobbies they engage in.  They're both "conservatives" (whatever the HELL that means to you ... which I'm starting to think is just, "Do they act like the White people I know from Kentucky?  Because if not, they are RINOs by default).

[RINO Tom]

If you find yourself constantly having to ask why most conservatives and Republicans have a different worldview than you, maybe it's time to stop calling yourself a conservative or a Republican.

^Also true.
[/quote]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

[RINO Tom]

Well, you are neither a conservative nor a Republican, so not sure why your opinion matters at all.  Santen(D-KY)er isn't exactly the most enviable endorsement of conservatism either.  There are millions and millions of Republicans in the US who are "REAL REPUBLICANS" who probably wouldn't receive Santender's stamp of approval ... and I'm sure they're damn proud of that, because who would want it?  Lol

Santander is as much a Republican as you are - since I guess both of you identify as Republicans. In fact, a great majority of Republicans would probably say that he's closer to the average Republican and today's GOP than you are, but that is detabable (Heck, who defines what a "conservative" is?). Also not sure why you're insisting that I'm not a conservative or conservative-leaning? (I mean, I haven't really thought about it much, but still...)

You are a conservative. He is  a moderate conservative, and he is a Christian Nationalist.

RINO Tom, is a epitome of centrist liberalism.

I suppose it depends on how we're defining everything.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

To be fair, you are the only person who is not.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

Based on what I've read, American "liberals" in the conventional sense (Jefferson to Jackson to Wilson to FDR to LBJ, etc.) derived their initial "liberalism" from the idea that America would be a newer, more progressive society where one's wealth or privilege would not guarantee one success, as it did in comparatively "conservative" Europe.  Following this spirit, Democratic-Republicans and Democrats have always taken whatever measure necessary (decreasing size of government, returning power to the states, increasing size of government, centralizing power, you name it) to stop our society from ever moving toward an oligarchy.  In the 1800s, that might have been opposing a continental railroad that would cost tons of money and only benefit those rich enough to afford to utilize it, but it also might be making the wealthy pay more in taxes in 2016 so that a new train could be built from the poorer neighborhoods to get into downtown somewhere.

That's the problem with drawing conclusions based around the "method" a politician of old tried to use to achieve his goals.

[RINO Tom]

RINO Tom is very far from the ideal of all liberal, all the time.

He would love Dutch or Belgian liberals. According to Dutch high school social science textbooks the Republicans are extremely liberal (and also really conservative) while the Democrats are moderately liberal and progressive. It's funny how lefties like Sanders, centrist moderate heroes like the UK Libdems and the most right-wing VVD or Venstre politicians all identify as liberals.

Based on what I've read, American "liberals" in the conventional sense (Jefferson to Jackson to Wilson to FDR to LBJ, etc.) derived their initial "liberalism" from the idea that America would be a newer, more progressive society where one's wealth or privilege would not guarantee one success, as it did in comparatively "conservative" Europe.  Following this spirit, Democratic-Republicans and Democrats have always taken whatever measure necessary (decreasing size of government, returning power to the states, increasing size of government, centralizing power, you name it) to stop our society from ever moving toward an oligarchy.  In the 1800s, that might have been opposing a continental railroad that would cost tons of money and only benefit those rich enough to afford to utilize it, but it also might be making the wealthy pay more in taxes in 2016 so that a new train could be built from the poorer neighborhoods to get into downtown somewhere.

That's the problem with drawing conclusions based around the "method" a politician of old tried to use to achieve his goals.

So you're a Republican because you want an oligarchy?

Okay, I know you're not that simplistic, bro.  I referenced what a bunch of dead people viewed themselves as, didn't give my opinion on it and you reached that conclusion somehow?  Unimpressive.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

[RINO Tom]

Yeah, RINO Tom is probably closer to BRTD and the Democratic party than jfern, especially since he voted for Clinton.

LOL, your conception of the Democratic Party as a bunch of fiscal centrists who sip champagne is just bizarre.  I have nothing in common with the Democratic Party's goals, and I have explained that my vote for Clinton had nothing to do with her views but rather 1) a protest vote (voting third party is a waste) and 2) the only way I could express my anger at my party for nominating a lunatic.

Being a "liberal" Republican does not make you more liberal than a "conservative" Democrat and in fact does just the opposite.

But isn't a protest vote inherently a waste anyway? The logic of "not wasting" a protest vote on a third party makes no sense to me.

Fair point, but as I sat there in the voting booth, it seemed if I weren't going to vote Trump, I should just pull the trigger for Clinton.

TN Vol, you hardly know any of my views.  You just assume that because I'm some Northern social moderate, I must be an elitist (which you also for some STUPID reason associate with Democrats over Republicans) and therefore you hate my views.

The whole political landscape is not good, God-fearin' rural folk vs. Hollywood and NYC.  Period.  It never will be.  Stop trying to phrase things that way, even if you don't put it in that exact language.

[RINO Tom]

Lol, I don't care that you're from Illinois/Iowa or THE NORTH (why are you so obsessed with this?). I also don't necessarily think that you're elitist (although your comments really seem to suggest that you are), just that you're extremely out of touch with your own party and the average Republican voter and that have much more in common with the party of Hillary Clinton than the GOP.

There are plenty of very conservative Republicans from THE NORTH (Heck, just look at Wisconsin, the birthplace of the Republican Party), but you seem to think that the South (where I'm not even from, fyi) is still some kind of Democratic base region and that the fact that Republicans are associated with the South or rural areas in general hurts them in a general election. Paul LePage, Ron Johnson, Scott Walker, Joni Ernst, Chris Christie, etc. are all basically as conservative as your average Southern Republican politician.

1. The Democratic Party going forward is as much "The Party of Hillary Clinton" as the Republican Party is "The Party of Mitt Romney."  That just doesn't fit your narrative that I'm "out of touch" with my party or the MUCH more asinine assertion that I have more in common with your average Democrat than your average Republican.  Seriously, look at how any red avatar on this site interacts with me during a debate, and you'll realize how stupid that comment was.  Or get out of Tennessee (seriously, is this not where you live?  Was the avatar just BS??), where Whites vote VERY differently than the rest of the country.

2. I never said the South was a Democratic bastion.  Like, seriously, WHAT are you talking about?

3. I have never said Republicans associated with the South hurt the GOP in elections, far from it.  What I have become RIDICULOUSLY irritated with over the last decade is Republicans (yes, largely from the South, in my experience) deciding FOR THEMSELVES what "conservative" means and viciously attacking any Republican who doesn't fit that mold as a "RINO" (hence my sarcastic username) or a "cuckservative" or whatever else, even when the person they're attacking might be MORE conservative than they are on other issues.  That doesn't matter to them; as long as you don't fit their lifestyle mold and cultural views and "talk the talk," you're some kind of lesser conservative, and that is just one of the most intellectually void mindsets I could possibly imagine.

4. I never responded to this, but did you seriously suggest that in a few years I am going to have a green avatar?  Get a grip.  I am a generic, moderate conservative who finds evangelism and outward social conservatism on moral issues to be uncomfortable and sometimes offensive, so I - as a member of my party's discourse - openly object to candidates who I think alienate some voters we could be winning.  I have some socially liberal views that I clearly hardly ever vote on.  Who cares?  Your characterization of me as "pretty much a Democrat" is just too bizarre.  This is a party that almost gave its nomination to a socialist and forced the gal who beat him to tact so far left that she more or less held the same views.  A party whose convention speakers were drowned out with deafening chants of "Stop TPP."  A party who is CLEARLY letting electoral defeat move it in a more populist and progressive direction.  The only things I can possibly theorize as to why your conception of them is so strangely off is how politics are where you live, which is why I keep referencing that.  Other than that, I am at a loss and just assume you are willfully ignoring the prevailing populist and progressive nature of the Democratic Party.

[RINO Tom]

^^^Thanks for the explanation. You DID say it, though

OMG GUYZ ITZ A TOS AHP!!!!!!!111!!!

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=143901.15
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142086.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=142146.0

In all seriousness, can we talk about states that are actually going to be competitive now? Virtually all the undecideds and Sanders supporters in NH will vote for Clinton in the end. Nothing to see here, move along. Also, a generic R would probably lose the women's vote in the state by 20+ points while Trump/Carson/Cruz would lose it by 40 points against Clinton. So yeah... there is no path to victory for the GOP here. The Vermontification of NH continues unabated and that's EXCELLENT NEWS!

Why?  So our party can continue to let our association with the South sink our electoral chances?

I don't see how this is even remotely true. States like Vermont or New Jersey turning into blue states did not happen over night or just because the Republican Party became more "Southern" - that is an overly simplistic and probably very wrong view. (I know you weren't saying THAT, but many people, including several "historians", seem to believe that this is the case). The GOP becoming more conservative and a bit populist is obviously helping them in most parts of the South and in many Western and Midwestern states, but I wouldn't say it's hurting them in the swing states, especially if they nominate the right candidate (someone like Kasich or...well.. Trump, lol) and don't let Democrats define their nominee as an out-of-touch right-wing lunatic or something like that.

Regarding your other point, I think we're just seeing a general trend here, with Democrats becoming more liberal and partisan and Republicans becoming more conservative and partisan - whether this is in the South or in states like Wisconsin or the West. It's really happening all over the country.

Even if you don't become a Democrat or Independent very soon, I wonder what you are going to do if the GOP becomes more populist and anti-free trade? Will you vote for Democrats at the presidential level and for Republicans down-ballot? Neither party would really "fit" your views, right?

I don't even remember saying the post you quoted, but touche, I guess.  LOL.

As for the bolded, the point I keep repeating over and over on this site is that the only way a MORE (key word, as it is simply implying MORE populist than the GOP has been previously!) populist GOP would lose voters like me is if Democrats actively court them, and they're clearly not doing that.  A more populist GOP that is more protectionist vs. an even more populist Democratic Party that is at least as "bad" (in my view) on trade is an easy choice for me.  Trump was a unique circumstance.  I didn't and still don't think he is safe for our country in office, it went way beyond political views.  There has never been a party that perfectly fit my views, and there never will be.  The Republican Party has been my party since I knew what the hell was goin' on, and it was my dad's and grandfather's party, as well.  I believe in its core principles of self-reliance, individualism and celebrating hard work/talent, rather than punishing it because someone else was unlucky (there are other ways to help the unlucky).  If there's a time when the Democrats are literally calling for lower federal spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. and the GOP is to the left of them on all that, then we can talk.  But that's not happening anytime in the foreseeable future.  It's not like I'm a single issue trade voter.