RNC Convention Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulinVA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
2nd Night Hits:
Melania Trump : The first lady has one trait that her husband lacks: empathy. And it was that ability to identify with the struggles, dreams, setbacks and victories of the average person that came through during her speech to close the second night of the convention. Unlike the rest of the speakers on Tuesday night, Melania Trump acknowledged the continued threat of the coronavirus – and the sacrifices it has required of Americans. (More on Covid – or the otherwise lack of it at the convention – below.) Melania Trump talked about her work with children. She spoke out on the horrors of America’s history of slavery while recounting a trip to Ghana. She cast herself as living “my own American dream.” Humanizing Donald Trump is a very hard thing to do, and he himself makes it even more difficult with his daily pronouncements and tweets. But the first lady did what she could to cast her husband’s first term in the kindest light possible. (She was also helped by a made-for-TV background: A clear – if hot – night in Washington with the newly renovated Rose Garden looking absolutely majestic.)
Click to expand...
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
RidgeSprinter said:
Humanizing Donald Trump is a very hard thing to do,
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t know. I imagine the Little Sisters of the Poor and other Catholic charities who were victimized by the Obama HHS Mandate felt he is human. Looking to the future, Biden has promised to crush them again if he is elected if they won’t provide abortifacient coverage for their workers. I would say it’s impossible to “humanize” a man who wants to do that and claims to be Catholic at the same time.
 
“…seems like it could be a violation of the Hatch Act” Why don’t you ask that man he pardoned what he thinks about how “gross” that was.
 
Banana Republicans don’t care that El Jeffe used the Presidential Palace for a campaign event.

Just like they don’t care that the illegal Acting Secretary of DHS participated in a campaign stunt in the Palace, swearing in new citizens. Are they really citizens if Chad Wolf is illegally in his position?

EDIT: or that SECSTATE Pompeo illegally gave a speech at the convention (according to his own IG)
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Likening Republicans to apologists for a dictator is a bit uncharitable, Paul.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. He’s acting like a dictator. He refuses to follow the law, to follow norms. He uses the trappings of his office to retain power. He won’t commit to following the results of the election.

What does that sound like to you?
 
Hilary?

Here’s hoping to a couple strong nights to finish out. Republicans need to build all the momentum they can to handle business in November.

It’s too bad we have to go through October surprises before we get there… I find them kinda annoying.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
When you’re not allowed to post things like that because the police are knocking at your door, then we can talk about dictatorial politicians.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair comment.

What would you call, then, a President who from the beginning has acted illegally and not within the framework of the system of checks and balances. Who tries to get pledges of personal loyalty from government employees, and when he can’t he fires them? What would you call a President who lies daily to advance his agenda.

What would you call a President who gasses a peaceful crowd so he can stage a publicity stunt in front of a church? What would you call a President who continually signs Executive Orders that are struck down by the courts?

What would you call a President who, for the first time in memory, uses the trappings of the office, in contravention of the law, to stage a political convention?

I’m open to other characterizations. Totalitarian? Fascist? Demagogue?
 
PaulinVA said:
I’m open to other characterizations. Totalitarian? Fascist? Demagogue?
Click to expand...
Totalitarian? Inaccurate as that requires the implementation of totalitarian policies on the populace. Read Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism.

Fascist? See above. Fascist has become a smear word that carries little to no meaning anymore, which is a shame. Real fascism, which is more than a swear word, has an actual ideological and socio-economic base.

Demagogue? Sure, but he’s hardly the first in our history.

I’d frankly characterize him as an idiot. Again, hardly the first in our history.

I’m just tired of hearing Democrats act like Republicans did under Obama. It’s silly.

In my opinion the last truly fascistic individual we had in power was John Ashcroft or Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Demagogue? Sure, but he’s hardly the first in our history.

I’d frankly characterize him as an idiot. Again, hardly the first in our history.
Click to expand...
But, an idiot who is setting dangerous precedent.
StudentMI said:
I’m just tired of hearing Democrats act like Republicans did under Obama. It’s silly.
Click to expand...
Former Reblican independent, so…
StudentMI said:
In my opinion the last truly fascist individual we had in power was John Ashcroft or Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...
Would you not put Bill Barr in that group? Or is he just a really bad AG who acts in the President’s, and not the US, interest?
 
PaulinVA said:
Would you not put Bill Barr in that group? Or is he just a really bad AG who acts in the President’s, and not the US, interest?
Click to expand...
I don’t know enough about Barr, sorry. Wasn’t he the one who got Fox to sideline Andrew Napolitano? That wasn’t cool. But I have yet to see him enact anything equal to the PATRIOT Act.
 
StudentMI said:
I don’t know enough about Barr, sorry. Wasn’t he the one who got Fox to sideline Andrew Napolitano? That wasn’t cool. But I have yet to see him enact anything equal to the PATRIOT Act.
Click to expand...
He’s the one who said earlier this year that the US Attorney for SDNY was resigning, when in fact he was not, and that he (Barr) was appointing someone who was ineligible to take his place. That action was widely believed to have been made to protect the President and his cronies from investigations that were ongoing. That Bill Barr.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Still not on the level of the PATRIOT Act. Or for that matter, the state reserving the right to murder citizens abroad with no trial (which Obama didn’t repeal).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top