Like, the fact that she’s a “good” one and that so many of the Republicans still hate her just tells you such much about the Grand Old Party. But, they knew Trump was going to destroy them and let it happen anyway, so whatever.
The republican base isn’t conservative in the modern sense, they’re reactionary. In a similar vein, evangelical republicans don’t support the people who embody the values that they profess to hold sacred, they fully, and loudly, back people who are quite the opposite.
I imagine that both groups feel that they’re increasingly losing out in modern society and are seeking someone who’ll crush their perceived enemies and return them to their rightful place ruling the rest of us. So, the allure of a strongman to return them to their imagined golden age.
Liz was against it. Liz was called out. Her sister and her fought for what looks like 10 years. Liz admits she was wrong.
Yes, it took the classic “I’m against it until it affects me” routine, but her opinion changed.
The “worst” Republicans of the past are that. Someone I disagree with fully, but given enough time can be convinced to change their mind.
(Also as a quick aside that doesn’t mean that Republicans are “always wrong” or Democrats are “always right”, it’s to show that a production conversation can happen.)
If you look at the MAGA Republican that isn’t the case. Trump has “never been wrong” and will never admit fault.
The funniest example of this being the development of COVID vaccines. Trump led Operating Warp Speed to get the COVID vaccines in record time (ignore if this is true or not, that’s the belief). But who are the most unlikely to get COVID vaccines? MAGA Republicans. Trump even tried to convince them, but was booed for it. The one time Trump was actually correct he was booed. Trump can’t be wrong so he’s shut up about it ever since.
Her opinion changed cause suddenly it started to personally affect her.
That doesnt make her a good person, or a good politician.
We don’t need politicians that only change positions when things personally affect them.
Thats why we’re in the situation with the country as it is, because 99% of problems in America will never personally affect them… cause they’ll always have the money, access, and power to overcome or bypass it without issue or headache.
I agree. It’s a classic problem. She had a view I find fully incompatible with being a good politician. Her reversing that view does not make her a good politician, but it does make her a better one.
The truth is if I had to vote between two politicians, each of which I disagree with on the majority of issues, but one is steadfast in their views while the other is known to waver, I may pick the second of the two.
Many politicians get a bad wrap for flip-flopping on issues, and I certainly want some level of consistency, but someone who can admit their mistake shouldn’t be ignored.
I do agree we need politicians who can change their opinions not only when it affects them personally. However, it’s not a zero sum game. If we can make a little progress, it’s still progress. It’s not enough, but it’s progress.
I have no problem with a politician that changes position based on new evidence or facts coming to light.
But I do not want, and will never support a politician that is steadfast for objectively awful things, until it personally affects them.Because they will continue to fight for awful things, and you wont always be lucky enough for it to affect them.
Remember the good old days when Cheney was the worst Republican?
Which is really saying something, isn’t it?
Like, the fact that she’s a “good” one and that so many of the Republicans still hate her just tells you such much about the Grand Old Party. But, they knew Trump was going to destroy them and let it happen anyway, so whatever.
Oddly she is more conservative than the conservative loving Maga crazies but since she doesn’t kneel in front of Trump…
The republican base isn’t conservative in the modern sense, they’re reactionary. In a similar vein, evangelical republicans don’t support the people who embody the values that they profess to hold sacred, they fully, and loudly, back people who are quite the opposite.
I imagine that both groups feel that they’re increasingly losing out in modern society and are seeking someone who’ll crush their perceived enemies and return them to their rightful place ruling the rest of us. So, the allure of a strongman to return them to their imagined golden age.
The difference is that while Cheney is “the worst” there was this idea, impractical as it is, that you could change their opinion.
Let’s take for example Liz Cheney’s view on same sex marriage, specifically in relation with her sister Mary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cheney#Dispute_with_Liz_Cheney
Liz was against it. Liz was called out. Her sister and her fought for what looks like 10 years. Liz admits she was wrong.
Yes, it took the classic “I’m against it until it affects me” routine, but her opinion changed.
The “worst” Republicans of the past are that. Someone I disagree with fully, but given enough time can be convinced to change their mind.
(Also as a quick aside that doesn’t mean that Republicans are “always wrong” or Democrats are “always right”, it’s to show that a production conversation can happen.)
If you look at the MAGA Republican that isn’t the case. Trump has “never been wrong” and will never admit fault.
The funniest example of this being the development of COVID vaccines. Trump led Operating Warp Speed to get the COVID vaccines in record time (ignore if this is true or not, that’s the belief). But who are the most unlikely to get COVID vaccines? MAGA Republicans. Trump even tried to convince them, but was booed for it. The one time Trump was actually correct he was booed. Trump can’t be wrong so he’s shut up about it ever since.
I disagree. The funniest example of Trump never admitting he’s wrong is definitely the Four Seasons Landscaping press release.
Actually you’re right, that is the best. I forget that one because it seems like an SNL skit until I remember it’s real.
Drawing on a map with sharpie and thinking nobody would notice is definitely in the top 5.
Which is actually a crime too!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074
Add it to the pile. Not the worst of his crimes but it may be the funniest.
Doesn’t he still want the Central Park 5 executed even though they have been proven innocent?
Her opinion changed cause suddenly it started to personally affect her.
That doesnt make her a good person, or a good politician.
We don’t need politicians that only change positions when things personally affect them.
Thats why we’re in the situation with the country as it is, because 99% of problems in America will never personally affect them… cause they’ll always have the money, access, and power to overcome or bypass it without issue or headache.
But he didn’t state the point you’re trying to counter. Never said she was a good person or politican.
I agree. It’s a classic problem. She had a view I find fully incompatible with being a good politician. Her reversing that view does not make her a good politician, but it does make her a better one.
The truth is if I had to vote between two politicians, each of which I disagree with on the majority of issues, but one is steadfast in their views while the other is known to waver, I may pick the second of the two.
Many politicians get a bad wrap for flip-flopping on issues, and I certainly want some level of consistency, but someone who can admit their mistake shouldn’t be ignored.
I do agree we need politicians who can change their opinions not only when it affects them personally. However, it’s not a zero sum game. If we can make a little progress, it’s still progress. It’s not enough, but it’s progress.
I have no problem with a politician that changes position based on new evidence or facts coming to light.
But I do not want, and will never support a politician that is steadfast for objectively awful things, until it personally affects them.Because they will continue to fight for awful things, and you wont always be lucky enough for it to affect them.