So what's the point of this comparison besides trivia?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Remember when Dems said this about Republicans?
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
The six seconds it takes to consider this is five seconds too much to make a difference for many people.
So your point is that words, much like war, never change?
nm...won't get into this nonsense.
Messofanego
Banned
I think the great mystery beyond Eacape Goat's weakly argued point is the bagel gif. What does it mean?!
Escape Goat
Member
Politics but words work too.
So you're doubling down? Please provide some evidence for your statements, for example a democratic committee investigating what's going on.
But you said the only similarities were superficial, so clearly the politics have changed.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
... No? Not when people aren't really interested in the truth.
In this age of hyper partisanship, you gotta reel in loyal supporters. Hopefully your message can resonate with ~50% of the country who don't pay any fucking attention and don't seem to care either way.
Byakuya769
Member
Escape w.o.a.t.
Escape Goat
Member
I said the methods, the politiking, was superficial like not offering Dem votes, engaging in congressional investigations, discrediting the administration. The substance behind these actions (or the actual existence of substance) is different.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I see that Hamburgler's point is lost on many. Try to actually read what he's saying and recognize the nuance.
Escape Goat
Member
I'm glad someone saw it. I wish people would just post dog pics now.
OK, I'm honestly trying to understand Escape's point here.
He gives a statement that could be something said from either side. Then he concedes that the situations are different, and that the substance is different. So, essentially what he's saying is that, if someone lies, they can say the same thing as someone else who is in an entirely different situation, and somehow that's supposed to be thought provoking?
This is akin to taking a quote from a white nationalist, changing a few words, and suggesting that it could just as easily have been from an equal rights movement from the 60's, right? Or am I missing something?
He gives a statement that could be something said from either side. Then he concedes that the situations are different, and that the substance is different. So, essentially what he's saying is that, if someone lies, they can say the same thing as someone else who is in an entirely different situation, and somehow that's supposed to be thought provoking?
This is akin to taking a quote from a white nationalist, changing a few words, and suggesting that it could just as easily have been from an equal rights movement from the 60's, right? Or am I missing something?
What exactly are they supposed to offer Dem votes on? The only shit put up has been wretched legislation that would get any democrat roasted for good reason. When the shoe was on the other foot, Obama and the Dems offered a lot of chances for amendments and things to Republicans. Republicans aren't doing that now. There's no reason to vote for something they had no say in making.
As for engaging in congressional investigations... They have to "engage." The difference is, as I've pointed out in my last post, the Republicans lead their investigations (and you even admit those were based on nothing really substantial). Right now the Democrats lead no committees at all. They're not creating investigations. By the same right the democrats were "engaged" in investigations against Hillary, too
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I've made the same point in previous discussions but was met with similar misunderstanding. I mean, I get it, there is a fine line between "let's compare tactics" and "both sides are the same", but there's still a difference that can be reasonably discussed.
metalslimer
Member
This isn't a thread whine but either your point has yet to be articulated or you have no point
Think before you post? You're the one that has a nonsensical thread and looks ridiculous for trying to compare Republicans (With a MAJORITY IN CONGRESS) obstructing by derailing four years of agenda with bullshit fake investigations to the Democrats in a minority role actually trying to investigate criminal activity.
Don't blame everyone else here for your inability to create a sensical first post.
Escape Goat
Member
You still don't get it. You're not going to.
So I'm understanding it, right? You're not comparing the tactics of the party, you're just using a party's talking point to describe that party's previous actions...right? Because that I fully get, and, while your original post really wasn't that clear, I'd say it's about right.
Of course, then the discussion goes into how the statement seems have come from the whole projection thing.
Escape Goat
Member
More or less, yes. They use this line of attack while they did the same just a couple years ago, but without the hint of smoke, much less a fire. Dems are the party of No but that's because the policies and actions of the majority are bats hit crazy. That's not an attack on Dems but now a point of pride.
aha! ok, nice to know I got it....also think that if this were a bit clearer in the OP, then most of this thread wouldn't have happened....
Then again, people jump on things...so maybe it would have anyway
George Washington
Member
I warned everyone 220 years ago about the dangers of political parties but no one listened.
This will continue until there is a greater backlash that dethrones these cancerous politicians.
Remember,
- a person must be at least 35 to be President / Vice President
- 30 to be a Senator
- 25 to be a representative
What's the median age in the senate?
The house?
This last election we had:
Donald Trump: 69
Hillary Clinton: 68-69
Bernie Sanders: 74-75
Jill Stein: 67
Why not let newer, younger generations debate their ideas? Oh right, that would be a threat to the members of the established political parties.
America will not change until we get younger people into the government, and most are not interested anyway so good luck.
This will continue until there is a greater backlash that dethrones these cancerous politicians.
Remember,
- a person must be at least 35 to be President / Vice President
- 30 to be a Senator
- 25 to be a representative
What's the median age in the senate?
The house?
This last election we had:
Donald Trump: 69
Hillary Clinton: 68-69
Bernie Sanders: 74-75
Jill Stein: 67
Why not let newer, younger generations debate their ideas? Oh right, that would be a threat to the members of the established political parties.
America will not change until we get younger people into the government, and most are not interested anyway so good luck.
...Why is it a point of pride?
And the methods aren't really the same. As mentioned before, the Democrats aren't leading the investigations, merely calling for them. The Democrats are not capable of meaningfully obstructing the opposing party unless it's divided. The only real similar tactic they have is discrediting the administration... And the actual methods for discrediting the administration are pretty different.
I still don't understand your point even after your response to me.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Honestly man, even the point you're trying to make is poorly considered. It took Trump for the Dems to go full obstructionist. A major critique against Dems has been an overwillingness to work with Republicans for more than a decade.
Escape Goat
Member
Because what they are saying no to (travel ban, Trumpcare) are going to hurt a lot of people.
There is mounting evidence that there was interference into the 2016 elections by Russia, and republicans are increasingly hostile towards new evidence that comes out proving this. It's not the same in the slightest and you're conflating the issues.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
really hamburglar, really?
You have to be really fucking stupid if you think birtherism and obstructionism is the same "tactic" as independent investigations into espionage, foreign collusion, and lying to congress and the FBI under oath.
Especially when the case is closed on one set of things and the cases are open with the president possibly being charged with obstruction for firing lead investigators for the other.
Really fucking stupid to not realize that judges deeming ECs unconstitutional isn't the democrats doing...
Especially when the case is closed on one set of things and the cases are open with the president possibly being charged with obstruction for firing lead investigators for the other.
Really fucking stupid to not realize that judges deeming ECs unconstitutional isn't the democrats doing...
So similar, but in the end not really? So why was this thread made again?
An apple is the same as an orange when it comes to rough shape, but in the end the similarties are at most superficial.
spazchicken
Member
The difference is the issue with Benghazi was a self contained incident.
All this Russian schmoozing could eventually lead to their tanks in our streets under the president's orders (stop and frisk 2.0) or something more subtle but just as bad.
All this Russian schmoozing could eventually lead to their tanks in our streets under the president's orders (stop and frisk 2.0) or something more subtle but just as bad.
When the left is right,
And the right is wrong,
Then the world is mad,
And the truth is gone.
Even with an understanding of what you are saying, I do not get what you want to discuss here.
Even though one can use the same statement now for the Democrats as could be used for the Republicans for the last 8 years, the scenario, reason, and tactic are completely different. As stated by many others, Democrats are not in power, they mainly are "obstructing (which they technically can't) due to who is in charge, they did not shut out the Republicans from anything when in power, they also are not setting up many investigations into the same issue even after each one has been concluded to have found nothing substantial.
It is just so different, there is no discussion where you can compare it in such a way without looking like a person claiming "both sides", because the notion of them being comparable is absurd. Due to how extreme the Republican party is, "obstruction" is literally the only way the Democrats can save America from itself until it regain control.
So again, this leaves the question... What are you trying to discuss?
Her use of a private email server was risky and careless, but not criminal. The investigation cleared her of wrong-doing because the only confidential material to make it onto that server was mislabeled by people who were not Hilary Clinton. The contents were ultimately inoffensive.
CherryIcee
Member
Doesn't this investigation have to come up empty and repeated 6 more times before it's considered like the Hillary witch hunts.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Both siders are the worst. I have some misinformed relatives that do that crap. This summer I will have my Homey D. Clown sock waiting for them at the cookout.
RustyNails
Member
I have asked myself and I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that if it were Obama or Hillary involved in this deep shit with Russia, I'd have called for their impeachment as well. The real story is that Emailzz and Benghazi were not real scandals at all. This one is 5000 scandals. Imagine Obama leaking Israel's ISIS spy to Russians inside the Oval Office. I'm 100℅ positive that Obama would end up in jail by now.
The term hypocrisy has lost all its meaning.
The term hypocrisy has lost all its meaning.
Escape Goat
Member
Cool post. Now try reading the thread. Anywho, I'm done. Thread bomba.
The words work both directions, but only make sense in one of the two scenarios. The Republican chairwoman dropping references to witch hunts and obstruction makes no sense in the current situation; that the GOP is trying to treat the current situation like Benghazi and Congress basically being dicks during the Obama administration doesn't make it a fair usage of the words.
Like, in the said-by-a-democrat scenario, it's somebody speaking from a party with a minority in both chambers of Congress, unable to get a vote on a president's Supreme Court nominee, talking about the politics of using the majority to refuse to let anything happen.
In said-by-a-republican today terms, obstruction seems to amount to disagreement by a minority that could potentially be outvoted.
I don't think the similarity in the wording is unintentional--I totally believe the GOP want the American people to view Trump and Russia with the same level of exhaustion they view Clinton and Benghazi--but that doesn't mean they need to be treated equally.
Like, in the said-by-a-democrat scenario, it's somebody speaking from a party with a minority in both chambers of Congress, unable to get a vote on a president's Supreme Court nominee, talking about the politics of using the majority to refuse to let anything happen.
In said-by-a-republican today terms, obstruction seems to amount to disagreement by a minority that could potentially be outvoted.
I don't think the similarity in the wording is unintentional--I totally believe the GOP want the American people to view Trump and Russia with the same level of exhaustion they view Clinton and Benghazi--but that doesn't mean they need to be treated equally.
Escape Goat
Member
Yes. Exactly. The rational used during Obamas presidency only makes sense now when applied to Trump. I dont think this is bias on my part but theres enough evidence by any impartial mind that the truth has not been told. As for Congress, obstruction in a Republican majority equates to demonstrate solidarity and resisting attempts by GOP to peel off red state Dems to save whatever legislation is at hand from the freedom caucus types. Ok. Now I'm fone.
