• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GOP PA official says the quiet part out loud: 'We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to ‘do the right thing’

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
21,437
3,167
136

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
4,942
4,402
136
It’s kind of funny when Trump GOPers say the truth because their default setting seems to be lying. Notice that he’s still playing the victim card even though he’s telling the truth.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,659
8,789
136
Trump showed the gop that you don’t need to dog whistle or imply things anymore. The gop is still doing what the gop has always done but now they don’t bother hiding it.

Good thing their party is a cult otherwise I can’t imagine anyone supporting them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,560
126
I think this guy was just saying that the job they expect of their senators is to support the Republican Party because they believe they are the good guys and Democrats are evil. That means they have no use for anybody who exercises a different kind of morality no matter you what name it because only the party’s ideological morality is the only real and good one.

So what this person heard internally compared to how it is being heard by liberals, and as horrible as it really is, isn’t morally bad in the eyes of this speaker. He is a true believer. He could have as easily said you are going to hell if Jesus isn’t your savior. That would just be a fact to a fundamentalist Christian, not an insult to billions of other people.

All he said is that he has no real idea what the good is. He is a blind and ignorant bigot. If you have your own sacred cows you believe unexamined, you are no different. And who is free of them? Maybe he who is free of sin?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
28,659
8,789
136
I think this guy was just saying that the job they expect of their senators is to support the Republican Party because they believe they are the good guys and Democrats are evil. That means they have no use for anybody who exercises a different kind of morality no matter you what name it because only the party’s ideological morality is the only real and good one.

So what this person heard internally compared to how it is being heard by liberals, and as horrible as it really is, isn’t morally bad in the eyes of this speaker. He is a true believer. He could have as easily said you are going to hell if Jesus isn’t your savior. That would just be a fact to a fundamentalist Christian, not an insult to billions of other people.

All he said is that he has no real idea what the good is. He is a blind and ignorant bigot. If you have your own sacred cows you believe unexamined, you are no different. And who is free of them? Maybe he who is free of sin?
He merely repeated the cult mantra.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,339
2,034
136
That's disgusting. I would like to see the full interview for some context, but it's hard to imagine it would be different materially.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,225
3,152
126
Trump showed the gop that you don’t need to dog whistle or imply things anymore. The gop is still doing what the gop has always done but now they don’t bother hiding it.

Good thing their party is a cult otherwise I can’t imagine anyone supporting them.
They wonder why suburban housewives aren't supporting them. I figure the GQP is gonna lose a lot of people after the Capitol desecration. T talks about the "worst witch hunt in American history," but it was the people he egged on who went head hunting through the corridors of the Capitol Building. I read that something like 200,000 have already switched parties from GQP-->Democratic since Jan. 6.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,339
2,034
136
I think this guy was just saying that the job they expect of their senators is to support the Republican Party because they believe they are the good guys and Democrats are evil. That means they have no use for anybody who exercises a different kind of morality no matter you what name it because only the party’s ideological morality is the only real and good one.

So what this person heard internally compared to how it is being heard by liberals, and as horrible as it really is, isn’t morally bad in the eyes of this speaker. He is a true believer. He could have as easily said you are going to hell if Jesus isn’t your savior. That would just be a fact to a fundamentalist Christian, not an insult to billions of other people.

All he said is that he has no real idea what the good is. He is a blind and ignorant bigot. If you have your own sacred cows you believe unexamined, you are no different. And who is free of them? Maybe he who is free of sin?
You say that so plainly as if you expect others to be able to imagine such a state of being for themselves.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,741
10,807
136
Trump showed the gop that you don’t need to dog whistle or imply things anymore. The gop is still doing what the gop has always done but now they don’t bother hiding it.

Good thing their party is a cult otherwise I can’t imagine anyone supporting them.
We were one more Trump term away from Republicans calling people like me the n-word in the open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaQ and ivwshane

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,462
4,378
136

I think, even by conservative/Republican standards, this is a stunning thing to say. Like, i would think MOST people would at LEAST pretend that they want their politicians to 'do the right thing'. Republicans just don't give 2 fucks anymore.
Yep. The one thing Trump was good for. Really exposing conservative Republicans for who they really are. Hope everyone's gotten a good look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnklSnappy and Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,225
3,152
126

I think, even by conservative/Republican standards, this is a stunning thing to say. Like, i would think MOST people would at LEAST pretend that they want their politicians to 'do the right thing'. Republicans just don't give 2 fucks anymore.
He should speak for himself. He voted for him for his own goddamn reasons. Who the fuck is he to tell people why they voted for someone??? What a pig/asshole!
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,678
985
126
We can expand this topic by discarding our historical myopia and the tendency to live in the moment. Some Millennials may not see the light right away, although a sizable number of urban Millennials hold progressive views. So here's my theory.

The Founders came up in a period called "The Enlightenment", when the Church was losing its grip on defining how people should think about the practical world. Consider for a minute how Evangelicals and other Right-wing elements put God in the Constitution, when he's obviously "not there" -- it's a contract between citizens. They confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which indeed invokes God, suggesting that the Rights of Man are God-given. People forget that the American colonists and generations who followed them were not the target audience of the Declaration's words. Instead, it was King George, in a time when people still spoke of a "Divine Right of Kings". You can see this obsequious language in the works of Locke or Hobbes (especially Hobbes) -- the grandfathers of the social sciences -- who primarily intended their words for the Sovereign. But in reality, the human race defined those rights and seized them as a quantum leap of human progress.

Similarly, the notion of personal property gets the same taint. It is the State which defines property rights, and the State can change them or take them away. Some safeguards in this respect are included in the Constitution.

There were no railroads at the Birth of the Republic, nor was there even so much as a telegraph. We had the postal service. So representative government was probably conceived with this in mind: they assumed that states and congressional districts would simply elect "wise men" who might "do the right thing". And beyond the invention of the telephone and radio, people communicated with their legislators using carefully worded letters posted in the mail. Perhaps some Power Elites could simply call their representatives or even their president to exert influence, but everything before Bill Gates and the internet still assured some degree of autonomy on behalf of legislators, and some degree of common sense filtering communications from the electorate.

The Founders also warned of factions, taken to mean political parties, extreme concentrated interests -- True Believers. They were never blind in this regard. But congressmen and senators were supposed to represent their districts or their states. Party was not their primary allegiance, at least not officially.

But today, there is this notion of winner-take-all in elections. Politicians worried about winning re-elections act less as leaders than as followers. They ignore the thoughts and interests of the losing opposition in their elections. They, like their partisan constituents, think of their election wins like sports enthusiasts view the NFL and Speed channel -- something akin to a religious allegiance and zero-sum game.

Others might expand or contend on this as they wish. But basically, I'm saying that free speech is fine, provided those who exercise it hold the Truth in prominence over everything. And I think that the Founders almost had a hard time imagining that a large number of people would not be Truth-Seekers, for after all -- the greatest of the Founders fit that description.

Instead, the free communication of the internet, cell-phone Tweets and similar channels has given way to more "white noise" of misinformation, disinformation, and the Murder of the Truth. Certainly, this is a paradox, given what Americans believe and hold to be important as a matter of their "fre-e-e-ee-doms".
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,225
3,152
126
We can expand this topic by discarding our historical myopia and the tendency to live in the moment. Some Millennials may not see the light right away, although a sizable number of urban Millennials hold progressive views. So here's my theory.

The Founders came up in a period called "The Enlightenment", when the Church was losing its grip on defining how people should think about the practical world. Consider for a minute how Evangelicals and other Right-wing elements put God in the Constitution, when he's obviously "not there" -- it's a contract between citizens. They confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which indeed invokes God, suggesting that the Rights of Man are God-given. People forget that the American colonists and generations who followed them were not the target audience of the Declaration's words. Instead, it was King George, in a time when people still spoke of a "Divine Right of Kings". You can see this obsequious language in the works of Locke or Hobbes (especially Hobbes) -- the grandfathers of the social sciences -- who primarily intended their words for the Sovereign. But in reality, the human race defined those rights and seized them as a quantum leap of human progress.

Similarly, the notion of personal property gets the same taint. It is the State which defines property rights, and the State can change them or take them away. Some safeguards in this respect are included in the Constitution.

There were no railroads at the Birth of the Republic, nor was there even so much as a telegraph. We had the postal service. So representative government was probably conceived with this in mind: they assumed that states and congressional districts would simply elect "wise men" who might "do the right thing". And beyond the invention of the telephone and radio, people communicated with their legislators using carefully worded letters posted in the mail. Perhaps some Power Elites could simply call their representatives or even their president to exert influence, but everything before Bill Gates and the internet still assured some degree of autonomy on behalf of legislators, and some degree of common sense filtering communications from the electorate.

The Founders also warned of factions, taken to mean political parties, extreme concentrated interests -- True Believers. They were never blind in this regard. But congressmen and senators were supposed to represent their districts or their states. Party was not their primary allegiance, at least not officially.

But today, there is this notion of winner-take-all in elections. Politicians worried about winning re-elections act less as leaders than as followers. They ignore the thoughts and interests of the losing opposition in their elections. They, like their partisan constituents, think of their election wins like sports enthusiasts view the NFL and Speed channel -- something akin to a religious allegiance and zero-sum game.

Others might expand or contend on this as they wish. But basically, I'm saying that free speech is fine, provided those who exercise it hold the Truth in prominence over everything. And I think that the Founders almost had a hard time imagining that a large number of people would not be Truth-Seekers, for after all -- the greatest of the Founders fit that description.

Instead, the free communication of the internet, cell-phone Tweets and similar channels has given way to more "white noise" of misinformation, disinformation, and the Murder of the Truth. Certainly, this is a paradox, given what Americans believe and hold to be important as a matter of their "fre-e-e-ee-doms".
Well stated. I'll just add that the Founders' reason to exclude religion from their newly forming state was the widespread fear among the colonies of the other colonies imposing their religious ideas on them. So, they wound up (hopefully) with a land where people are not oppressed by virtue of others' beliefs.

Concerning the widespread lack of concern for Truth nowadays, a quotation I very much like:

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,678
985
126
Well stated. I'll just add that the Founders' reason to exclude religion from their newly forming state was the widespread fear among the colonies of the other colonies imposing their religious ideas on them. So, they wound up (hopefully) with a land where people are not oppressed by virtue of others' beliefs.

Concerning the widespread lack of concern for Truth nowadays, a quotation I very much like:

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
A good one, that.

Another perspective might be to imagine a spectrum of human understanding. At one extreme, pure belief, often called Faith, which has no empirical basis to confirm it. In between, varying levels of "suspicion" and logical inference incorporating a growing body of fact. It was the Catholic Church which coined the word "propaganda", and the catechism I remember spoke of "knowing" God. But in the practical real world of common sense, one "knows" things that can be proven.

I also find it ironic that a Catholic bishop in the state of New York -- Bishop Ryan -- was largely responsible for taking religious indoctrination out of the public schools. He saw his Irish-Catholic flock being indoctrinated by evangelical protestants. So he organized to influence the state legislature -- and that . . . was that . . .

There is a morality defined by religion. Several religions intersect as a matter of moral rights and wrongs which preserve civilization and the nation-state. The nation-state has no responsibility for helping citizens get to heaven. It only has a responsibility to assure their personal freedom in efforts of getting to heaven. The intersection is nothing else than secular Law. So I would think the enlightened citizen would have two senses of morality. This is where the ending passages of "The Oxbow Incident" seem to confound the meaning of "The Law": "There can't be any such thing as civilization......unless people have a conscience......because if people touch God anywhere......where is it except through their conscience?" Your evangelical would attempt to interpret Van Tilburg Clark's meaning of this to their own purposes, but conscience is one thing, Law and civilization are something else.

The Trump Base seems to miss a lot in this distinction. Take for instance the insurrectionist of January 6 who was interviewed and recorded saying "The courts don't help us!"

Thank God for that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,560
126
You say that so plainly as if you expect others to be able to imagine such a state of being for themselves.
Probably the most important thing I can think of at the moment that ever happened to me was in the depths of despair and and the certainty of endless hopelessness as a young man, I happened to read a book on Zen. In that book, I learned something that provoked me to rage that, there were assholes in the world who had did not themselves cling to any of the sacred beliefs I had lost and were not only not miserable like I was but quite the opposite. In this way I was forced to ask myself how that could possibly be, to question what I had not realized about what I had previously imagined, that life, without the meaning my sacred cows had given me, my dear dear ego beliefs, were not only not essential but the source of my misery.

So I was forced just by contact with the unimaginable to see what I had never thought before, that the walls of the prison that contained me were not actually real. And what happened to a nobody like me can surely happen to anyone else.

Many many years later, I read in Sufi material, that new organs of perception develop with need followed by the suggestion that one increase his or her need. Perhaps sometimes, the more fucked up you realize you are, the better.

So imagine everything anybody thinks they have lost, the natural joy inherent in every newborn human being, can actually never be taken. It can only be buried deeply beneath the unexamined assumption it can, by conditioning.

I believe, then, a couple of things. I experienced on the arrival of Good News, a state of rage, the result of insult to my ego, that all that I held important and dear and had lost were actually as meaningless as everything else. I had lost meaning but I still held on to the notion of its necessity, hence the rage. My assumptions were being contradicted, my dear precious ego insulted. I was being made to feel what I had always felt, the worthless of my opinions, the rage of challenge to my beliefs. And since I am very lucky to have had that happen to me, and know that the feeling is inevitable in all who are similarly challenged, I simply do not care. If you tell the truth people will hate you but may ultimately benefit. So I don't really expect anything but I don't have any fear of offering since I know exactly what the reaction must be, expressed or not. The sad thing about the growth of awareness is it's accompaniment by pain. It is pain that motivates unconsciousness and feeling it that brings release.

As my teacher told me, we are in a capsized boat and we have to swim down before we can surface. As a doctor you doubtless give the best advise that you can. I say what I believe to be true based on what I have experienced. I used to be somebody who couldn't hear anything any more than any good Republican cult member. I don't really have to imagine what it is to be like them.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,225
3,152
126
Probably the most important thing I can think of at the moment that ever happened to me was in the depths of despair and and the certainty of endless hopelessness as a young man, I happened to read a book on Zen. In that book, I learned something that provoked me to rage that, there were assholes in the world who had did not themselves cling to any of the sacred beliefs I had lost and were not only not miserable like I was but quite the opposite. In this way I was forced to ask myself how that could possibly be, to question what I had not realized about what I had previously imagined, that life, without the meaning my sacred cows had given me, my dear dear ego beliefs, were not only not essential but the source of my misery.

So I was forced just by contact with the unimaginable to see what I had never thought before, that the walls of the prison that contained me were not actually real. And what happened to a nobody like me can surely happen to anyone else.

Many many years later, I read in Sufi material, that new organs of perception develop with need followed by the suggestion that one increase his or her need. Perhaps sometimes, the more fucked up you realize you are, the better.

So imagine everything anybody thinks they have lost, the natural joy inherent in every newborn human being, can actually never be taken. It can only be buried deeply beneath the unexamined assumption it can, by conditioning.

I believe, then, a couple of things. I experienced on the arrival of Good News, a state of rage, the result of insult to my ego, that all that I held important and dear and had lost were actually as meaningless as everything else. I had lost meaning but I still held on to the notion of its necessity, hence the rage. My assumptions were being contradicted, my dear precious ego insulted. I was being made to feel what I had always felt, the worthless of my opinions, the rage of challenge to my beliefs. And since I am very lucky to have had that happen to me, and know that the feeling is inevitable in all who are similarly challenged, I simply do not care. If you tell the truth people will hate you but may ultimately benefit. So I don't really expect anything but I don't have any fear of offering since I know exactly what the reaction must be, expressed or not. The sad thing about the growth of awareness is it's accompaniment by pain. It is pain that motivates unconsciousness and feeling it that brings release.

As my teacher told me, we are in a capsized boat and we have to swim down before we can surface. As a doctor you doubtless give the best advise that you can. I say what I believe to be true based on what I have experienced. I used to be somebody who couldn't hear anything any more than any good Republican cult member. I don't really have to imagine what it is to be like them.
I figure the majority of enlightened people got there by virtue of a disillusionment.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
8,207
3,137
136
The Founders also warned of factions, taken to mean political parties, extreme concentrated interests -- True Believers. They were never blind in this regard. But congressmen and senators were supposed to represent their districts or their states. Party was not their primary allegiance, at least not officially.
Well, given the founding fathers really only wanted to give the landed gentry the right to vote - it seems they wanted to avoid the calamity of the mob as well.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,678
985
126
Well, given the founding fathers really only wanted to give the landed gentry the right to vote - it seems they wanted to avoid the calamity of the mob as well.
It has been argued, and it seems that way. They laid the groundwork for establishing state universities and then land-grant universities. Public schools emerged at the local level. The great immigration waves of the 19th and early 20th century were met with a public school system which had an objective of "Americanizing" the newcomers.

I'm trying to remember which of the Federalist papers and their authors coined the term "rights of property". Noam Chomsky seems to think it was a code-word for the rights of people with property -- hardly an arcane understanding of the obvious. After the Revolution, they didn't seize the land-grants given to select people by the King.

Even so, their worries about this still seem no less naive than what Trump proves: possession of wealth does not guarantee in any way that the wealth-holder has either common sense or brains.

Putting the cart of Belief before the horse of Common Sense goes hand in hand with an appeal to the lowest denominator of intellectual laziness. An Ideology is a crutch for the lazy.

I suppose the question of the hour is how it can all be fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,678
985
126
Here's a head's up to those of an intellectual and nitpicking inclination.

I had mentioned and quoted script-lines from the movie version of Van Tilburg Clark's "The Oxbow Incident", a western novel that in some ways parallels the story of the January 6 "uprising". And in a post above, I said that I thought the script-lines confuse the distinction between a religion's moral law and the secular law of government. Eventually, for concerns I deem important, I go back and compare cinema script lines with either published history or the fictional novel and basis of the cinema screenplay.

The reading of the lynch-victim's letter at the end of the movie is drawn from text that appears early in the novel -- page 55. Van Tilburg Clark had no ambiguous understanding of it:

" . . . Law is more than the words that put it on the books; law is more than any decisions that may be made from it; law is more than the particular code of it stated at any one time or in any one place or nation; more than any man, lawyer or judge, sheriff or jailer, who may represent it. True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society. It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality which has evolved with mankind. None of man's temples, none of his religions, none of his weapons, his tools, his arts, his sciences, nothing else he has grown to, is so great a thing as his justice, his sense of justice. The true law is something in itself; it is the spirit of the moral nature of man; it is an existence apart, like God, and as worthy of worship as God. If we can touch God at all, where do we touch Him save in the conscience? And what is the conscience of any man save his little fragment of the conscience of all men in all time?"

Van Tilburg Clark had it right -- the clear sense that secular law and morality was as important in this life as the religious commandments are in relation to the next life.

And the screenwriters of the 1941 film muddled it up in their abbreviation of the author's original words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,225
3,152
126
@BonzaiDuck, I've never seen it put that way, the majesty and sanctity of conscience for mankind. If I'd had that notion I may have applied to law school. I got a good enough score on the LSAT (without having done any prep at all, I just took it at graduation in math). But I feared that becoming a lawyer would ruin my conscience, not develop it. What I knew about the practice of law was pretty much what one gets from popular culture, in which lawyers are typically portrayed as hired to represent clients who want above all to win, generally any way they can. I had no role models to contradict this dire concept. There were no lawyers in the family, I didn't know any, never did. I know one lawyer now but have never discussed anything with him relating to the practice of law!

Reading your bolded text I was reminded of this quotation:

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." - Albert Einstein

Perhaps Einstein was wrong.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY