Republicans Have No Principles

[NightFox]

You'd think that graphic I posted in the OP is simple enough that it wouldn't need to be explained to you.

You're correct, it's very, very, very "simple", which explains why it and puerile artifacts like it have so much appeal to you and those who share your lack of objectivity and perception.

"With enough mental gymnastics, just about any fact can become misshapen in favor to one's confirmation bias." -- Criss Jami

 

[Seawytch]

Yay, team! ...

So Mac1958, still see no difference in the "two sides"?

 

[Seawytch]

Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.

Bad attempt at spin. Why would Republicans NOT support bombings in 2013 (after 1400 were gassed) and then suddenly support it by a 64 point margin when 70 are gassed?

What a difference a president makes to the partisan right. Party over country.

 

[vlad_hombre]

There aren't many in politics these days that can talk about principles with clean hands, given the actions taken over the years by both parties. Nor in the media either IMHO. Arguing about who is worse is a fool's errand.

I would agree that neither side has clean hands, although the Republicans are much, much worse.

A cursory glance at the policy positions the two sides have staked over the last three decades is conclusive and damning for the GOP.

 

[vlad_hombre]

one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all.

How about when we are actually threatened or at least have legitimate interests?

Assad is evil and is committing horrific atrocities, but unfortunately there's a lot of that on this planet, and we lack the power and the resources to police it all.

 

[TheDude]

No, Dems. have no brains. Circumstances have changed and additionally, this is an MSNBC poll. You know, the kind of poll fixed for Democrats? Explain why you didn't learn anything being played the first few times.

 

[task0778]

Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.

Bad attempt at spin. Why would Republicans NOT support bombings in 2013 (after 1400 were gassed) and then suddenly support it by a 64 point margin when 70 are gassed?

What a difference a president makes to the partisan right. Party over country.

Point taken. But you ignored the thrust of my post: why didn't the Dems support airstrikes in Syria when Obama was in office, and why didn't he take any meaningful action? And does that not indicate a lack of compassion from the Dmes?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Shit, before the election Trump called China rapists and currency manipulators. Republicans cheered.

Then Trump says he likes the President of China so the raping he previously noted is a nice kind of rub your cheek while raping type of rape. Republicans cheer.

 

[vlad_hombre]

No, Dems. have no brains. Circumstances have changed and additionally, this is an MSNBC poll. You know, the kind of poll fixed for Democrats? Explain why you didn't learn anything being played the first few times.

They were both WaPo polls, dimwit.

MSNBC just made a graphic to go along with the polls.

 

[task0778]

one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all.

How about when we are actually threatened or at least have legitimate interests?

Assad is evil and is committing horrific atrocities, but unfortunately there's a lot of that on this planet, and we lack the power and the resources to police it all.

We didn't have refugees by the thousands coming into the US then, without the accompanying risk of future terrorist attacks. That could be a reason why Repubs are somewhat more supportive of airstrikes today than they were in 2013.

 

[TheDude]

Here's the kicker. The liberals would present this poll as evidence of republican inconsistency. Consider this cause and effect in simple terms even a leftist should understand:

A. Syrians gas people in 2013 & 38% of Democrats prefer airstrikes.

B. But shucks, the Dems. work it out w/o airstrikes, because the Syrian govt. pinky finger promises they'll never do it again, cuz they're going to destroy this shit. Thanks Syrians, you're the best. Diplomacy rocks.

C. Syrians break pinky finger promise and what do liberals do? A smaller percentage prefer airstrikes.


In summary, they reward people for bad behavior. Gee, what a surprise. Thanks MSNBC

 

[ClosedCaption]

Here's the kicker. The liberals would present this poll as evidence of republican inconsistency. Consider this cause and effect in simple terms even a leftist should understand:

A. Syrians gas people in 2013 & 38% of Democrats prefer airstrikes.

B. But shucks, the Dems. work it out w/o airstrikes, because the Syrian govt. pinky finger promises they'll never do it again, cuz they're going to destroy this shit. Thanks Syrians, you're the best. Diplomacy rocks.

C. Syrians break pinky finger promise and what do liberals do? A smaller percentage prefer airstrikes.


In summary, they reward people for bad behavior. Gee, what a surprise. Thanks MSNBC

People lie, numbers dont.

 

[vlad_hombre]

We didn't have refugees by the thousands coming into the US then, without the accompanying risk of future terrorist attacks. That could be a reason why Repubs a somewhat more supportive of airstrikes today than they were in 2013.

Wow ...

I guess if we fire enough munitions into Syria there won't be any refugees.

Hard to argue with the kinda "logic".

 

[Seawytch]

Given the use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces in Syria and the fact that the Dems are not supporting airstrikes against them to preclude further war crimes, one wonders under what circumstances the Dems would support ANY military actions at all. Easy to see why Obama wouldn't take action back then when his own red line was crossed; his own political base as against it and he knew it. So he did the politically wise thing, and did nothing. And you guys say Repubs have no compassion.

Bad attempt at spin. Why would Republicans NOT support bombings in 2013 (after 1400 were gassed) and then suddenly support it by a 64 point margin when 70 are gassed?

What a difference a president makes to the partisan right. Party over country.

Point taken. But you ignored the thrust of my post: why didn't the Dems support airstrikes in Syria when Obama was in office, and why didn't he take any meaningful action? And does that not indicate a lack of compassion from the Dmes?

They are consistent in their support or lack there of. (The point of the thread)

Obama wanted to take "meaningful action" and he WENT TO CONGRESS...they told him no.

Start a thread about support for action in Syria if you want your questions answered about why someone would not support that action. This thread is about GOP hypocrisy.

 

[task0778]

We didn't have refugees by the thousands coming into the US then, without the accompanying risk of future terrorist attacks. That could be a reason why Repubs a somewhat more supportive of airstrikes today than they were in 2013.

Wow ...

I guess if we fire enough munitions into Syria there won't be any refugees.

Hard to argue with the kinda "logic".

Wow, what a totally stupid thing to say. As if there might not be fewer refugees from Syria of Assad wasn't bombing them, especially with chemical weapons.

 

[Mac1958]

Yay, team! ...

So Mac1958, still see no difference in the "two sides"?

I love those straw men.

I've never, ever, ever said I "see no difference between the two sides".

What I actually HAVE said, is that the two sides share many behaviors.

So, ya wanna try again, or do ya wanna toss out another straw man?
.

 

[LaDexter]

Republicans have no principles... at least since 1998 a true statement.

At least the Dems stand for four...

1. STEALING
2. LYING
3. HATING
4. DISCRIMINATING


Vote Libertarian!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Derp]

Vote Libertarian!!!!!!!!!!!!

Self-described "libertarians" are like house cats; wholly convinced of their own independence but entirely dependent on others to survive.

 

[Seawytch]

Yay, team! ...

So Mac1958, still see no difference in the "two sides"?

I love those straw men.

I've never, ever, ever said I "see no difference between the two sides".

What I actually HAVE said, is that the two sides share many behaviors.

So, ya wanna try again, or do ya wanna toss out another straw man?
.

Ah, yes...behaviors. They do at that. They breathe and walk upright.

 

[TheDude]

Say libs., what does the following statement mean to you?

""Fool Me Once, Shame On you, Fool Me Twice,Shame on Me"

Here's a hint.........Trump didn't allow the USA to be fooled twice right? Yet according to this poll, libs would prefer it.