Nice to see where the hidden money is coming from and why, but still not a fan of the equivalency rationalization.
Where Durant gets a pass. With her actual ads showing her as the fawning acolyte of Youngkin, aka Tammy Wynette standing by her man; and Youngkin spending such a large part of his "governorship" once he realized the 2024 cycle wasn't going to be his shot (unless the 14th Amendment opens up the Republican cult's national nomination process) - in courting those millions of national hyper-partisan dollars to define state races on national partisanship - it's hard to act like her hands are clean.
The same classy vision that gave us Amway Cadillacs and marginal products in the 60s and 70s now gets to define education in 21st century Virginia?
Pass, thanks.
I understand why Ms Durant and Youngkin would want to see so much dust kicked up, and so much distraction. Because the question in my mind is why those in Falmouth who are now set to begin suffering a methadone clinic next to a preexisting daycare due to her negligence and inattentiveness as their representative on the Board of Supervisors, would want to reward her by kicking her up to the Senate?
Mr Griffin seems like a plain-speaking straight shooter rather than anyone's yes-man (or woman). I'd say we can use more like him and hope you will join me in voting for him this November. No matter what Betsy Davos or some billionaire from Texas's money says.
Thank you for a thoughtful comment. My focus here in this piece is dark money, and how it's being used in this particular piece. How candidates frame themselves (Durant you describe quite well; Griffin focusing on his military service and business experience) is another topic for another day. Thanks for reading the Advance!
“Dark money” has always scared me, no matter where it’s from or who receives it.
Though it was your main topic, something else you wrote attracted my attention. You said that the attitude of Jen Peterson, her supporters and the spotsy school board majority is “We don’t care about those parents’ rights.” My experience with them has been much simpler: “You’re wrong.” A great knee-jerk response to everything.
Of course, that's not what equivalency or rationalization mean in practice. Equivalency is the comparison of like things; equivocation (which I think is what you are trying to express) is the attempt to use ambiguity to make unlike things similar. Rationalization is a means of excusing bad behavior.
Unfortunately, most people rationalize to excuse their bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others. Much of what you have written here achieves precisely this. That's how "our guys" become plain speaking straight shooters and "their guys" become negligent and inattentive (sic).
Comparing Durant to a beaten wife is lurid in the extreme. Blaming Durant for the opioid crisis in toto seems rather extreme (one heck of a hobby). Hating Youngkin so much you are willing to not only punch through Tara Durant in order to get to him? That's depressing...
This mentality is what contributes to the way politics is broken today. Far easier to hate your opposition than to actually discuss issues in a competent way. Far easier to allow dark money to trigger your amygdala and get you to believe an emotional response as true rather than work based off getting to the heart of a matter. Political consultants use this trick all the time on low-IQ and low-EQ voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike. If I can get you to have an emotional response, then I don't have to worry about a reasonable one -- you'll defend your emotional response to the hypothetical as true regardless as to the facts of the case being rearranged to explain how things really are.
That's how and why negative campaigning works.
Case in point? I have just explained how political advertising works to trigger an emotional response by arranging facts just-so rather than driving towards solutions. I have corrected what rationalization is and shown how you have engaged in it yourself (politely, I hope). What's more, I have corrected your definition of equivalency and demonstrated how equivocation works. I doubt it will be persuasive in the slightest; in fact, I suspect that, now seeing the psychology behind negative attack ads, it will simply be fuel for you (and others) to engage in like-minded attacks against other people... not because it is right or wrong, but because most people's idea of the highest good is "I want what I want" and to hell with truth, solutions, facts, ideas, opinions, other human beings, etc.
In that the piece was trying to make Durant and Griffin seem equivalent, when in fact - the one you're judging by what has occurred, and the other - you're judging by what might occur.
Specifically, this comment from the original article:
"The problem is, however, that Durant - in all likelihood - had nothing to do with this ad. No more than Griffin will have anything to do with the attack ads sure to be coming that unfairly criticize Durant. (The Advance will be watching for these.)"
I dunno. You want to parse semantics to win a debate and then fill the air with chaff to hide the wheat - have at it.
But Joe Biden or AOC or George Soros ain't holding hootenannies in Cville, traveling to Texas, or getting money from billionaire dilletantes in Michigan to throw into state Senate races in Virginia.
Youngkin is.
Durant is not only benefiting from that money - to what extent it is a benefit, she does seem to have made that association with him a central part of her campaign - hence the signs with them together - throughout the district. Yet Mr Davis seems to want to paint them with the same brush. One for what has occurred, the other for what may occur. Reminds me more of Minority Report than an impartial judgement based upon facts.
Now I'm not sure what tactic one would use to describe a comment that such advertising reminds me of a Tammy Wynette song means I am calling her a beaten wife (does Youngkin beat her? Do tell.)
Would it be a strawman argument, perhaps?
Is that the only thing you think of when you hear the title of a Tammy Wynette song? I'm wondering more about what that says about you, if that is the case, rather than what it says about me, Tammy, or Tara. But anyhoo.
Or what you would call it when someone challenging a factual occurrence - that a methadone clinic is likely going to be allowed to open next to an already existing daycare because either
a: The sitting Board of Supervisors member for that district (Ms Durant) wanted it to occur
b: The sitting Board of Supervisors member for that district (Ms Durant) was not aware of it occurring though it is a valid question if she should have been.
Which brings up valid questions of which is the case. And if she was not aware, why not?
Was it because of being so focused on her next job that she didn't spend sufficient time doing the one she had? (You know, sorta like Youngkin?)
And if that's the case, and now Falmouth residents will suffer as a result - why she should be rewarded for such inattentiveness - no matter how much 1% money is flooding the air waves?
Now how asking those hard, but important, questions regarding an issue that is directly impacting people in the community she already represents - as well as those she would represent can be conflated into an unjust attack on a poor innocent waif that can only be due to a hatred of Youngkin, rather than it being an issue of expecting a public official to be accountable for their actions and/or inactions - well - I'm sure a learned person can find a term for that - but it still won't change what is happening on the ground.
No one is accusing her of being a member of the Sackler family. But the families who have children at Bright Beginnings Daycare are going to have to make some hard choices regarding what they do with their children as a result of her actions, not the Sackler's.
At a time when funding for childcare is about to run out, but that's got more due to with all of the Republican party's indifference to investing in children rather than billionaires, not just Ms. Durant's.
And BTW - I noted in all of the words and offense you provided, you still didn't answer the questions regarding her actions. Indeed, I can see why the publication you write for is named the Republican Standards.
FWIW, you opine that I am excusing my own bad behavior (?) by blaming her. And that is what's wrong with politics today.
I'd say it's more due to an atmosphere where corporations are people while children in cages are not, money is free speech, and slightly less than 1/2 of the electorate believes that morality is limited by only what can be proven against you in a court of law, as they blindly support a man with almost 100 felony charges with probable cause found in 4 different venues, both state and federal - without question or limit rather than looking for people who hold themselves to a higher standard.
Which again, is why I tend to support those who do speak plainly and stand up for principles rather than those who seem more suit than substance. How'd the kids used to get taught?
Character counts. Not characters. And I suspect you're wrong more often than you realize. Good day to you as well.
Trying to pretend everyone is the same and we should never make a judgement based upon facts - believe it or not, used to be something conservatives were against.
Really, they still are; as in I consider myself one of the most conservative people I know. It's one of many positions which I admittedly find myself surprised to have to defend now days.
Never thought there would be a time when I would have to explain why as an American, I am against torturing children as a government policy to control their parents. Or as a Christian, or really, as a human being.
Yet here we are.
With folks like Ken Cuccinelli or Jeff Sessions explaining that it's just good, clean fun - while I look on in disgust.
That running up debt on my children and grandchildren to give billionaires welfare was and is obscene.
Now don't get me wrong, I totally get reducing the corporate rate so we could compete with folks like Ireland. It was one of the few things Trump did that I agree with.
And I think Biden should get commended for pushing to get so many of the OECD countries to meet that target. But even folks like Jaime Dimon, who also agreed with the reduction - expected there to be a concurrent raise in revenue elsewhere rather than placing it on a credit card in a time of plenty.
And yes, as someone who spent years dealing with criminals, and supervising people who wore a badge, as someone who swore an oath to uphold the law, and who buried good friends and mentors who died while serving; like Joel Griffin, I got a problem not only with someone who betrays that trust for his own gain - resulting in over 140 good men and women being beaten within an inch of their lives - and also the 1st violence tinged transfer of power in the history of this country -
I also got a big problem with the people who continue to this day to look the other way and either pretend like it didn't happen, pretend it wasn't your party that did it, pretend it was justified, or that it wasn't that bad and we should all just move on, because there are good people on both sides of a fascist, oligarchal, personality cult dictatorship. You know, as long as Wall Street's happy.
Again, never thought being against beating law enforcement to death or upholding the United States Constitution were "leftist", "Communist", or wrong things. Or that any American would consider otherwise. That was a shock. But I'll still stand for those things, even if you don't. Same as I've done before. Right's right, wrong's, wrong. Sometimes...the important times, it really is that's simple.
Now I'll admit I am a simple man. Certainly and obviously not as learned as yourself. I got as much of my education from reading Louis L'Amour novels, watching John Wayne films, or being around both men and women to whom principles and their word mattered - more than anything else.
So when I see a party built upon a cult of lies, no amount of book learning nor semantics is going to make me ignore that. Again, facts matter. Truth matters.
Sometimes, it really is that simple.
You're a party without a platform, because the party is your platform.
You may not believe this, but I used to respect the Republican party. To give you an idea, I've voted in every election since 1980, and my choice for President won every time until 2016.
My views on immigration aligned with those expressed by Ronald Reagan and HW Bush in their 1980 debate regarding the subject. They still do. And yet now I am considered a leftist for holding such views. I ain't moved an inch. So who did?
And my most difficult decision for President was the race in 2008 between McCain and Obama. I admired McCain's principles and experience, yet was concerned about his age.
The factor I decided would make up my mind was whether McCain reached across the aisle to Liebermann, or choose Palin. I'm sorry, if you're so dumb you don't realize that Africa is a continent and not a country, you can't have my nuclear codes if an old guy like McCain dies.
Joke was on all of us 8 years later, right?
But I did find it telling that McCain himself later recognized his choice of Palin as a moral failure. He should have trusted his heart rather than the pundits.
On and on.
Wealth inequality is worse than the time of the robber barons. China now out does us on longevity. We have an existential crisis regarding climate which we ignore at our children's peril. We are at best middle of the road vs OECD regarding most metrics - healthcare, civil liberties, education.
But hey, we got more guns per capita than anybody. More of our children and citizens incarcerated than anybody. We shoot more of each other than anybody. And yet more of our populace believe in angels than science.
Etc.
So, based upon facts, results, return on investment, observable actions, body of work - things which again - used to be conservative metrics (and still are for me) - yeah - Dems good - Reps bad.
Really wish it weren't so.
But you're currently looking to nominate someone whom the Constitution forbids to be President due to his earlier actions - which if it was good enough to keep Robert E Lee off of the ballot, is certainly good enough to keep a perv, grifting, slumlord from Queens off of the same, who again - has had probable cause for over 90 felony charges in 4 different venues, has been found liable for sexual assault, bragged on tape to sexual assault regularly, has had to settle with porn stars, ripped off customers, had over 30000 public lies in 4 year period, etc. - and you want to act like none of that matters.
At the same time you present yourselves as the defenders of truth, justice, and the American way.
Now, am I happy that is what's happening today?
No, not really.
But I'd say a lot of it has to do with the power that the rich have gained thru stacking courts with theocrats who promise one thing to get there, then do another when they do. With the same judges telling us that they are lords and will do as they please. As we suffer thru things like Heller, Citizen's United, etc.
So yeah, when I see gadfly Youngkin taking advantage of that system and then Ms Durant riding his coattails - presenting themselves as zealot light as compared to the likes of Matt Strickland - which means their basic principle is not pro-life or pro-business or pro-ignorance - but only enough of those things as they can be as still stay in power, then I have concerns.
If the only principle you have is to tell people what they want to hear, and don't dare expect a hard answer or plain speaking - then I'm not a fan. Didn't like it with Hillary, don't care for it with Youngkin, looks like more of the same with Durant. I see very little substance beyond a Tammy Wynette photo op.
Based on all that, far as I can tell - the desire for power is the only remaining principle the Republican party will not forswear. And why I do not see myself voting for it, ever again.
Doubt I'll live long enough to see it change, and know I won't support anyone who didn't have the guts to stand up when it mattered. When Liz Cheney comes back to power or Hutchinson or Kemp becomes a real choice, give me a call.
But even then, the core rot of the Republican ethos will still remain. You are a party of grasshoppers, living only for today.
Like I said, facts matter.
Seems like Mr Griffin gets that. While Ms Durant just provides more of the same old, same old. All hat, no cattle.
So he gets my vote. Y'all a long way from being the party of Linwood Holton or John Warner. You want to cover your ears and yell "lalalalala.." over and over when somebody mentions it?
That's your right. I believe in freedom of religion. Even for cults.
Just don't expect me to do it with you. I'm not good at pretend.
Seems like the majority of Americans feel the seem way, when they think about it. That's why we have a President Biden, rather than Trump - even with the edge yall get with the Electoral College.
But honestly, if I were the only one left in this country who believed in those things - I'd still believe in them. Win, lose, or draw.
Like I said, Mr Griffin seems to feel the same way. So yeah, as a grown man, I feel comfortable making a value judgement based upon that.
Like I said, I'm a conservative, and facts matter.
Now you got it?
Sir.
Moving on.
And voting for Griffin. As I hope all reading will join me. I think he can do better. To all those who might, for whatever reason, still be reading this thread, and who can do so with open minds, check out the facts and make your own decision on whether things like principle, character, oaths, and service mean anything to you.
Voting for him might not save the world, but its something we can do in our part of the world. Take care.
Yeah, it did feel good to remind folks that not everyone has forgotten that y'all attempted to overthrow the government.
And you've never either accepted responsibility for it, as a party - nor given any indication that you won't do it again. This time with more experience to work with.
The other day, I watched your second string meekly look across the room to decide which way the wind was blowing on the debate floor, then 6 out of 8 of them raised their hands to say they would let it all happen again if it will keep them relevant.
While you try to pretend the most important thing we've got to worry about is which books you can ban so Timmy doesn't learn before college why Johnny has two Daddies.
I realize that there will always be folks like Mr Davis that again - can rationalize such things. Minimize it. "Move on" for the sake of consensus. Act like everybody does it.
I've read Dwayne Yancey for years. Trust me, I'm familiar with the concept.
Or pretend there's no there, there. Right up until the blood starts flowing, then they act all surprised about it. When what all y'all are doing is exactly what you said you would do.
When I read such stuff, I always feel like Charles Durning's character in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou - while listening to his "brain trust" going on about his electoral chances. I think the term for the feeling is incredulous, but please tell me if I've gotten it wrong.
Please, always feel ready to rep-splain to me what I really meant when I write something. I find it enlightening to the highest degree.
But it still doesn't change the fact that right is right, and wrong is wrong.
No matter how much Amway money Betsy Davos spends to keep us from thinking about it.
I wish we could get back to the days of good strong, healthy debates. Where you got to vote for a candidate, you believed in Not for the candidate that scared to the least. Party lines are changing yet again the GOP is not the GOP it once was and the same goes for the Democratic Party. Neither side has a true local voice who stands up against the cowardly behaviors. Run real campaign ads, not one candidate has stated any policies or how they will go about achieving their objectives. It’s a sad time for Virginia voters to not have much to be excited for in November.
Nice to see where the hidden money is coming from and why, but still not a fan of the equivalency rationalization.
Where Durant gets a pass. With her actual ads showing her as the fawning acolyte of Youngkin, aka Tammy Wynette standing by her man; and Youngkin spending such a large part of his "governorship" once he realized the 2024 cycle wasn't going to be his shot (unless the 14th Amendment opens up the Republican cult's national nomination process) - in courting those millions of national hyper-partisan dollars to define state races on national partisanship - it's hard to act like her hands are clean.
The same classy vision that gave us Amway Cadillacs and marginal products in the 60s and 70s now gets to define education in 21st century Virginia?
Pass, thanks.
I understand why Ms Durant and Youngkin would want to see so much dust kicked up, and so much distraction. Because the question in my mind is why those in Falmouth who are now set to begin suffering a methadone clinic next to a preexisting daycare due to her negligence and inattentiveness as their representative on the Board of Supervisors, would want to reward her by kicking her up to the Senate?
Mr Griffin seems like a plain-speaking straight shooter rather than anyone's yes-man (or woman). I'd say we can use more like him and hope you will join me in voting for him this November. No matter what Betsy Davos or some billionaire from Texas's money says.
Thank you for a thoughtful comment. My focus here in this piece is dark money, and how it's being used in this particular piece. How candidates frame themselves (Durant you describe quite well; Griffin focusing on his military service and business experience) is another topic for another day. Thanks for reading the Advance!
“Dark money” has always scared me, no matter where it’s from or who receives it.
Though it was your main topic, something else you wrote attracted my attention. You said that the attitude of Jen Peterson, her supporters and the spotsy school board majority is “We don’t care about those parents’ rights.” My experience with them has been much simpler: “You’re wrong.” A great knee-jerk response to everything.
Of course, that's not what equivalency or rationalization mean in practice. Equivalency is the comparison of like things; equivocation (which I think is what you are trying to express) is the attempt to use ambiguity to make unlike things similar. Rationalization is a means of excusing bad behavior.
Unfortunately, most people rationalize to excuse their bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others. Much of what you have written here achieves precisely this. That's how "our guys" become plain speaking straight shooters and "their guys" become negligent and inattentive (sic).
Comparing Durant to a beaten wife is lurid in the extreme. Blaming Durant for the opioid crisis in toto seems rather extreme (one heck of a hobby). Hating Youngkin so much you are willing to not only punch through Tara Durant in order to get to him? That's depressing...
This mentality is what contributes to the way politics is broken today. Far easier to hate your opposition than to actually discuss issues in a competent way. Far easier to allow dark money to trigger your amygdala and get you to believe an emotional response as true rather than work based off getting to the heart of a matter. Political consultants use this trick all the time on low-IQ and low-EQ voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike. If I can get you to have an emotional response, then I don't have to worry about a reasonable one -- you'll defend your emotional response to the hypothetical as true regardless as to the facts of the case being rearranged to explain how things really are.
That's how and why negative campaigning works.
Case in point? I have just explained how political advertising works to trigger an emotional response by arranging facts just-so rather than driving towards solutions. I have corrected what rationalization is and shown how you have engaged in it yourself (politely, I hope). What's more, I have corrected your definition of equivalency and demonstrated how equivocation works. I doubt it will be persuasive in the slightest; in fact, I suspect that, now seeing the psychology behind negative attack ads, it will simply be fuel for you (and others) to engage in like-minded attacks against other people... not because it is right or wrong, but because most people's idea of the highest good is "I want what I want" and to hell with truth, solutions, facts, ideas, opinions, other human beings, etc.
I'd love to be wrong.
Naw, think I meant what I said.
In that the piece was trying to make Durant and Griffin seem equivalent, when in fact - the one you're judging by what has occurred, and the other - you're judging by what might occur.
Specifically, this comment from the original article:
"The problem is, however, that Durant - in all likelihood - had nothing to do with this ad. No more than Griffin will have anything to do with the attack ads sure to be coming that unfairly criticize Durant. (The Advance will be watching for these.)"
I dunno. You want to parse semantics to win a debate and then fill the air with chaff to hide the wheat - have at it.
But Joe Biden or AOC or George Soros ain't holding hootenannies in Cville, traveling to Texas, or getting money from billionaire dilletantes in Michigan to throw into state Senate races in Virginia.
Youngkin is.
Durant is not only benefiting from that money - to what extent it is a benefit, she does seem to have made that association with him a central part of her campaign - hence the signs with them together - throughout the district. Yet Mr Davis seems to want to paint them with the same brush. One for what has occurred, the other for what may occur. Reminds me more of Minority Report than an impartial judgement based upon facts.
Now I'm not sure what tactic one would use to describe a comment that such advertising reminds me of a Tammy Wynette song means I am calling her a beaten wife (does Youngkin beat her? Do tell.)
Would it be a strawman argument, perhaps?
Is that the only thing you think of when you hear the title of a Tammy Wynette song? I'm wondering more about what that says about you, if that is the case, rather than what it says about me, Tammy, or Tara. But anyhoo.
Or what you would call it when someone challenging a factual occurrence - that a methadone clinic is likely going to be allowed to open next to an already existing daycare because either
a: The sitting Board of Supervisors member for that district (Ms Durant) wanted it to occur
b: The sitting Board of Supervisors member for that district (Ms Durant) was not aware of it occurring though it is a valid question if she should have been.
Which brings up valid questions of which is the case. And if she was not aware, why not?
Was it because of being so focused on her next job that she didn't spend sufficient time doing the one she had? (You know, sorta like Youngkin?)
And if that's the case, and now Falmouth residents will suffer as a result - why she should be rewarded for such inattentiveness - no matter how much 1% money is flooding the air waves?
Now how asking those hard, but important, questions regarding an issue that is directly impacting people in the community she already represents - as well as those she would represent can be conflated into an unjust attack on a poor innocent waif that can only be due to a hatred of Youngkin, rather than it being an issue of expecting a public official to be accountable for their actions and/or inactions - well - I'm sure a learned person can find a term for that - but it still won't change what is happening on the ground.
No one is accusing her of being a member of the Sackler family. But the families who have children at Bright Beginnings Daycare are going to have to make some hard choices regarding what they do with their children as a result of her actions, not the Sackler's.
At a time when funding for childcare is about to run out, but that's got more due to with all of the Republican party's indifference to investing in children rather than billionaires, not just Ms. Durant's.
And BTW - I noted in all of the words and offense you provided, you still didn't answer the questions regarding her actions. Indeed, I can see why the publication you write for is named the Republican Standards.
FWIW, you opine that I am excusing my own bad behavior (?) by blaming her. And that is what's wrong with politics today.
I'd say it's more due to an atmosphere where corporations are people while children in cages are not, money is free speech, and slightly less than 1/2 of the electorate believes that morality is limited by only what can be proven against you in a court of law, as they blindly support a man with almost 100 felony charges with probable cause found in 4 different venues, both state and federal - without question or limit rather than looking for people who hold themselves to a higher standard.
Which again, is why I tend to support those who do speak plainly and stand up for principles rather than those who seem more suit than substance. How'd the kids used to get taught?
Character counts. Not characters. And I suspect you're wrong more often than you realize. Good day to you as well.
Oh, sorry.
Sir.
I too want to be polite.....
Your side good. Their side bad.
Got it.
What can I say?
Facts matter.
Trying to pretend everyone is the same and we should never make a judgement based upon facts - believe it or not, used to be something conservatives were against.
Really, they still are; as in I consider myself one of the most conservative people I know. It's one of many positions which I admittedly find myself surprised to have to defend now days.
Never thought there would be a time when I would have to explain why as an American, I am against torturing children as a government policy to control their parents. Or as a Christian, or really, as a human being.
Yet here we are.
With folks like Ken Cuccinelli or Jeff Sessions explaining that it's just good, clean fun - while I look on in disgust.
That running up debt on my children and grandchildren to give billionaires welfare was and is obscene.
Now don't get me wrong, I totally get reducing the corporate rate so we could compete with folks like Ireland. It was one of the few things Trump did that I agree with.
And I think Biden should get commended for pushing to get so many of the OECD countries to meet that target. But even folks like Jaime Dimon, who also agreed with the reduction - expected there to be a concurrent raise in revenue elsewhere rather than placing it on a credit card in a time of plenty.
And yes, as someone who spent years dealing with criminals, and supervising people who wore a badge, as someone who swore an oath to uphold the law, and who buried good friends and mentors who died while serving; like Joel Griffin, I got a problem not only with someone who betrays that trust for his own gain - resulting in over 140 good men and women being beaten within an inch of their lives - and also the 1st violence tinged transfer of power in the history of this country -
I also got a big problem with the people who continue to this day to look the other way and either pretend like it didn't happen, pretend it wasn't your party that did it, pretend it was justified, or that it wasn't that bad and we should all just move on, because there are good people on both sides of a fascist, oligarchal, personality cult dictatorship. You know, as long as Wall Street's happy.
Again, never thought being against beating law enforcement to death or upholding the United States Constitution were "leftist", "Communist", or wrong things. Or that any American would consider otherwise. That was a shock. But I'll still stand for those things, even if you don't. Same as I've done before. Right's right, wrong's, wrong. Sometimes...the important times, it really is that's simple.
Now I'll admit I am a simple man. Certainly and obviously not as learned as yourself. I got as much of my education from reading Louis L'Amour novels, watching John Wayne films, or being around both men and women to whom principles and their word mattered - more than anything else.
So when I see a party built upon a cult of lies, no amount of book learning nor semantics is going to make me ignore that. Again, facts matter. Truth matters.
Sometimes, it really is that simple.
You're a party without a platform, because the party is your platform.
You may not believe this, but I used to respect the Republican party. To give you an idea, I've voted in every election since 1980, and my choice for President won every time until 2016.
My views on immigration aligned with those expressed by Ronald Reagan and HW Bush in their 1980 debate regarding the subject. They still do. And yet now I am considered a leftist for holding such views. I ain't moved an inch. So who did?
And my most difficult decision for President was the race in 2008 between McCain and Obama. I admired McCain's principles and experience, yet was concerned about his age.
The factor I decided would make up my mind was whether McCain reached across the aisle to Liebermann, or choose Palin. I'm sorry, if you're so dumb you don't realize that Africa is a continent and not a country, you can't have my nuclear codes if an old guy like McCain dies.
Joke was on all of us 8 years later, right?
But I did find it telling that McCain himself later recognized his choice of Palin as a moral failure. He should have trusted his heart rather than the pundits.
On and on.
Wealth inequality is worse than the time of the robber barons. China now out does us on longevity. We have an existential crisis regarding climate which we ignore at our children's peril. We are at best middle of the road vs OECD regarding most metrics - healthcare, civil liberties, education.
But hey, we got more guns per capita than anybody. More of our children and citizens incarcerated than anybody. We shoot more of each other than anybody. And yet more of our populace believe in angels than science.
Etc.
So, based upon facts, results, return on investment, observable actions, body of work - things which again - used to be conservative metrics (and still are for me) - yeah - Dems good - Reps bad.
Really wish it weren't so.
But you're currently looking to nominate someone whom the Constitution forbids to be President due to his earlier actions - which if it was good enough to keep Robert E Lee off of the ballot, is certainly good enough to keep a perv, grifting, slumlord from Queens off of the same, who again - has had probable cause for over 90 felony charges in 4 different venues, has been found liable for sexual assault, bragged on tape to sexual assault regularly, has had to settle with porn stars, ripped off customers, had over 30000 public lies in 4 year period, etc. - and you want to act like none of that matters.
At the same time you present yourselves as the defenders of truth, justice, and the American way.
Now, am I happy that is what's happening today?
No, not really.
But I'd say a lot of it has to do with the power that the rich have gained thru stacking courts with theocrats who promise one thing to get there, then do another when they do. With the same judges telling us that they are lords and will do as they please. As we suffer thru things like Heller, Citizen's United, etc.
So yeah, when I see gadfly Youngkin taking advantage of that system and then Ms Durant riding his coattails - presenting themselves as zealot light as compared to the likes of Matt Strickland - which means their basic principle is not pro-life or pro-business or pro-ignorance - but only enough of those things as they can be as still stay in power, then I have concerns.
If the only principle you have is to tell people what they want to hear, and don't dare expect a hard answer or plain speaking - then I'm not a fan. Didn't like it with Hillary, don't care for it with Youngkin, looks like more of the same with Durant. I see very little substance beyond a Tammy Wynette photo op.
Based on all that, far as I can tell - the desire for power is the only remaining principle the Republican party will not forswear. And why I do not see myself voting for it, ever again.
Doubt I'll live long enough to see it change, and know I won't support anyone who didn't have the guts to stand up when it mattered. When Liz Cheney comes back to power or Hutchinson or Kemp becomes a real choice, give me a call.
But even then, the core rot of the Republican ethos will still remain. You are a party of grasshoppers, living only for today.
Like I said, facts matter.
Seems like Mr Griffin gets that. While Ms Durant just provides more of the same old, same old. All hat, no cattle.
So he gets my vote. Y'all a long way from being the party of Linwood Holton or John Warner. You want to cover your ears and yell "lalalalala.." over and over when somebody mentions it?
That's your right. I believe in freedom of religion. Even for cults.
Just don't expect me to do it with you. I'm not good at pretend.
Seems like the majority of Americans feel the seem way, when they think about it. That's why we have a President Biden, rather than Trump - even with the edge yall get with the Electoral College.
But honestly, if I were the only one left in this country who believed in those things - I'd still believe in them. Win, lose, or draw.
Like I said, Mr Griffin seems to feel the same way. So yeah, as a grown man, I feel comfortable making a value judgement based upon that.
Like I said, I'm a conservative, and facts matter.
Now you got it?
Sir.
Moving on.
And voting for Griffin. As I hope all reading will join me. I think he can do better. To all those who might, for whatever reason, still be reading this thread, and who can do so with open minds, check out the facts and make your own decision on whether things like principle, character, oaths, and service mean anything to you.
Voting for him might not save the world, but its something we can do in our part of the world. Take care.
Glad you could get all of that off of your chest. Whew!!!
Yeah, it did feel good to remind folks that not everyone has forgotten that y'all attempted to overthrow the government.
And you've never either accepted responsibility for it, as a party - nor given any indication that you won't do it again. This time with more experience to work with.
The other day, I watched your second string meekly look across the room to decide which way the wind was blowing on the debate floor, then 6 out of 8 of them raised their hands to say they would let it all happen again if it will keep them relevant.
While you try to pretend the most important thing we've got to worry about is which books you can ban so Timmy doesn't learn before college why Johnny has two Daddies.
I realize that there will always be folks like Mr Davis that again - can rationalize such things. Minimize it. "Move on" for the sake of consensus. Act like everybody does it.
I've read Dwayne Yancey for years. Trust me, I'm familiar with the concept.
Or pretend there's no there, there. Right up until the blood starts flowing, then they act all surprised about it. When what all y'all are doing is exactly what you said you would do.
When I read such stuff, I always feel like Charles Durning's character in Oh Brother, Where Art Thou - while listening to his "brain trust" going on about his electoral chances. I think the term for the feeling is incredulous, but please tell me if I've gotten it wrong.
Please, always feel ready to rep-splain to me what I really meant when I write something. I find it enlightening to the highest degree.
But it still doesn't change the fact that right is right, and wrong is wrong.
No matter how much Amway money Betsy Davos spends to keep us from thinking about it.
I wish we could get back to the days of good strong, healthy debates. Where you got to vote for a candidate, you believed in Not for the candidate that scared to the least. Party lines are changing yet again the GOP is not the GOP it once was and the same goes for the Democratic Party. Neither side has a true local voice who stands up against the cowardly behaviors. Run real campaign ads, not one candidate has stated any policies or how they will go about achieving their objectives. It’s a sad time for Virginia voters to not have much to be excited for in November.