ADVERTISEMENT

All the best people

Rockfish1

Hall of Famer
Sep 2, 2001
36,255
6,841
113
Mike Pompeo is a corrupt political hack:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has for months deflected questions about whether the Trump administration demanded political favors from Ukraine in exchange for military aid. He has refused to explain why he recalled the American ambassador, declared that it was “inappropriate” for his diplomats to testify before Congress and declined to hand over documents to impeachment investigators.

On Wednesday, Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, filled in the blanks: He said Mr. Pompeo and his top aides “knew what we were doing, and why,” and recited emails he wrote to Mr. Pompeo about the quid pro quo demanded by President Trump. “Everyone was in the loop,” Mr. Sondland said.

Mr. Sondland’s testimony has undercut any notion that Mr. Pompeo, the administration’s most powerful national security official, was not a participant in Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine. It also firmly places him at the center of one of the nation’s biggest foreign policy controversies in nearly two decades, since the debate over the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

Whatever Mr. Pompeo’s future plans, Mr. Trump’s secretary of state is now tied intimately to the Ukraine controversy. Even before Mr. Sondland’s testimony, Mr. Pompeo was rumored to be seeking an exit from the State Department, perhaps to run for a Senate seat in Kansas, his adopted home state, with an eye toward a presidential bid once Mr. Trump leaves the stage.

No matter what he does, Mr. Pompeo will almost certainly face charges that, at best, he abetted Mr. Trump in enlisting a foreign nation to help his 2020 campaign as the price for aid in a grinding war involving Russia in eastern Ukraine. At worst, Mr. Pompeo will be seen as coordinating and approving the demands that Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, announce investigations into dubious claims about the Biden family and 2016 election interference as the price for an Oval Office meeting and a resumption of American military aid.

. . . Mr. Pompeo admitted last month that he took part in the July 25 call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, but has refused to talk in detail about his involvement in the matter. Yet several of his top diplomats have gone to Congress to pull back the curtains on Mr. Trump’s efforts, infuriating the president. State Department employees privately have cheered on those diplomats while criticizing Mr. Pompeo for what they call a failure of leadership.

Mr. Sondland noted that Mr. Pompeo and several of the secretary’s top aides received his emails about Ukraine. “On Aug. 22, I emailed Secretary Pompeo, directly copying Secretariat Kenna,” he said of one instance, referring to Lisa Kenna, the executive secretary. He also said Ms. Kenna would sometimes print out his emails on Ukraine addressed to Mr. Pompeo and “put them in front of him.”

. . . On Wednesday, Mr. Sondland painted a picture of an activist secretary of state who was informed of attempts to force Mr. Zelensky to announce opening the investigations. Replying to the Aug. 22 email from Mr. Sondland, Mr. Pompeo even approved a plan to have Mr. Zelensky tell Mr. Trump at a scheduled meeting in Warsaw that Mr. Zelensky would pledge to move forward “on those issues of importance” to the president, Mr. Sondland said.

“We kept the leadership of the State Department and the N.S.C. informed of our activities,” Mr. Sondland said, referring to Mr. Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time who oversaw the National Security Council staff. “They knew what we were doing and why.”

. . . He added, “State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine efforts, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing.”

Mr. Pompeo appears to have kept his Ukraine and Russia policy staff in the dark on those efforts. In effect, that means diplomats outside the executive offices were trying to carry out the traditional American policy to support Ukraine against Russia — and get the military aid flowing — while Mr. Pompeo was involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts.

After helping Mr. Trump and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, remove Marie L. Yovanovitch as ambassador of Ukraine — she championed anticorruption measures — Mr. Pompeo failed to inform the veteran diplomat he picked to succeed her, William B. Taylor Jr., of the political demands being made of Mr. Zelensky.

In testimony, Mr. Taylor described slowly uncovering the plan, and sending Mr. Pompeo a cable on Aug. 29 saying that withholding the aid was “folly.”

Even then, Mr. Taylor did not appear to know of Mr. Pompeo’s role.

“The Ukraine scandal is a great microcosm of how this administration’s real foreign policy machinery operates,” said Andrew S. Weiss, a former senior official at the National Security Council, State Department and Pentagon who advised on Russia and Ukraine. “Our allies and adversaries all know about this. Yet it’s just so dysfunctional to have people like Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor spinning their wheels out in Kyiv while Pompeo and Giuliani indulged the president’s affection for baseless conspiracy theories and hand-to-hand political combat.”
Ronald Reagan famously said that the most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." This exemplifies the ideological Republican view that government = bad. And right here handy is a Republican government to prove they've been right all along.

When you vote Republican, you get Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who corruptly subjugates our national interest to the petty political needs of the corrupt unfit disloyal (Republican) cartoon character he serves. Which has gotta make you wonder: Why do decent people vote Republican?
 
Mike Pompeo is a corrupt political hack:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has for months deflected questions about whether the Trump administration demanded political favors from Ukraine in exchange for military aid. He has refused to explain why he recalled the American ambassador, declared that it was “inappropriate” for his diplomats to testify before Congress and declined to hand over documents to impeachment investigators.

On Wednesday, Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, filled in the blanks: He said Mr. Pompeo and his top aides “knew what we were doing, and why,” and recited emails he wrote to Mr. Pompeo about the quid pro quo demanded by President Trump. “Everyone was in the loop,” Mr. Sondland said.

Mr. Sondland’s testimony has undercut any notion that Mr. Pompeo, the administration’s most powerful national security official, was not a participant in Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine. It also firmly places him at the center of one of the nation’s biggest foreign policy controversies in nearly two decades, since the debate over the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

Whatever Mr. Pompeo’s future plans, Mr. Trump’s secretary of state is now tied intimately to the Ukraine controversy. Even before Mr. Sondland’s testimony, Mr. Pompeo was rumored to be seeking an exit from the State Department, perhaps to run for a Senate seat in Kansas, his adopted home state, with an eye toward a presidential bid once Mr. Trump leaves the stage.

No matter what he does, Mr. Pompeo will almost certainly face charges that, at best, he abetted Mr. Trump in enlisting a foreign nation to help his 2020 campaign as the price for aid in a grinding war involving Russia in eastern Ukraine. At worst, Mr. Pompeo will be seen as coordinating and approving the demands that Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, announce investigations into dubious claims about the Biden family and 2016 election interference as the price for an Oval Office meeting and a resumption of American military aid.

. . . Mr. Pompeo admitted last month that he took part in the July 25 call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, but has refused to talk in detail about his involvement in the matter. Yet several of his top diplomats have gone to Congress to pull back the curtains on Mr. Trump’s efforts, infuriating the president. State Department employees privately have cheered on those diplomats while criticizing Mr. Pompeo for what they call a failure of leadership.

Mr. Sondland noted that Mr. Pompeo and several of the secretary’s top aides received his emails about Ukraine. “On Aug. 22, I emailed Secretary Pompeo, directly copying Secretariat Kenna,” he said of one instance, referring to Lisa Kenna, the executive secretary. He also said Ms. Kenna would sometimes print out his emails on Ukraine addressed to Mr. Pompeo and “put them in front of him.”

. . . On Wednesday, Mr. Sondland painted a picture of an activist secretary of state who was informed of attempts to force Mr. Zelensky to announce opening the investigations. Replying to the Aug. 22 email from Mr. Sondland, Mr. Pompeo even approved a plan to have Mr. Zelensky tell Mr. Trump at a scheduled meeting in Warsaw that Mr. Zelensky would pledge to move forward “on those issues of importance” to the president, Mr. Sondland said.

“We kept the leadership of the State Department and the N.S.C. informed of our activities,” Mr. Sondland said, referring to Mr. Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time who oversaw the National Security Council staff. “They knew what we were doing and why.”

. . . He added, “State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine efforts, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing.”

Mr. Pompeo appears to have kept his Ukraine and Russia policy staff in the dark on those efforts. In effect, that means diplomats outside the executive offices were trying to carry out the traditional American policy to support Ukraine against Russia — and get the military aid flowing — while Mr. Pompeo was involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts.

After helping Mr. Trump and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, remove Marie L. Yovanovitch as ambassador of Ukraine — she championed anticorruption measures — Mr. Pompeo failed to inform the veteran diplomat he picked to succeed her, William B. Taylor Jr., of the political demands being made of Mr. Zelensky.

In testimony, Mr. Taylor described slowly uncovering the plan, and sending Mr. Pompeo a cable on Aug. 29 saying that withholding the aid was “folly.”

Even then, Mr. Taylor did not appear to know of Mr. Pompeo’s role.

“The Ukraine scandal is a great microcosm of how this administration’s real foreign policy machinery operates,” said Andrew S. Weiss, a former senior official at the National Security Council, State Department and Pentagon who advised on Russia and Ukraine. “Our allies and adversaries all know about this. Yet it’s just so dysfunctional to have people like Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor spinning their wheels out in Kyiv while Pompeo and Giuliani indulged the president’s affection for baseless conspiracy theories and hand-to-hand political combat.”
Ronald Reagan famously said that the most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." This exemplifies the ideological Republican view that government = bad. And right here handy is a Republican government to prove they've been right all along.

When you vote Republican, you get Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who corruptly subjugates our national interest to the petty political needs of the corrupt unfit disloyal (Republican) cartoon character he serves. Which has gotta make you wonder: Why do decent people vote Republican?
I’m about ready to bet that you will be first on the WC to say “the only good Republican is a dead Republican.”
 
Mike Pompeo is a corrupt political hack:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has for months deflected questions about whether the Trump administration demanded political favors from Ukraine in exchange for military aid. He has refused to explain why he recalled the American ambassador, declared that it was “inappropriate” for his diplomats to testify before Congress and declined to hand over documents to impeachment investigators.

On Wednesday, Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, filled in the blanks: He said Mr. Pompeo and his top aides “knew what we were doing, and why,” and recited emails he wrote to Mr. Pompeo about the quid pro quo demanded by President Trump. “Everyone was in the loop,” Mr. Sondland said.

Mr. Sondland’s testimony has undercut any notion that Mr. Pompeo, the administration’s most powerful national security official, was not a participant in Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine. It also firmly places him at the center of one of the nation’s biggest foreign policy controversies in nearly two decades, since the debate over the intelligence that led to the war in Iraq.

Whatever Mr. Pompeo’s future plans, Mr. Trump’s secretary of state is now tied intimately to the Ukraine controversy. Even before Mr. Sondland’s testimony, Mr. Pompeo was rumored to be seeking an exit from the State Department, perhaps to run for a Senate seat in Kansas, his adopted home state, with an eye toward a presidential bid once Mr. Trump leaves the stage.

No matter what he does, Mr. Pompeo will almost certainly face charges that, at best, he abetted Mr. Trump in enlisting a foreign nation to help his 2020 campaign as the price for aid in a grinding war involving Russia in eastern Ukraine. At worst, Mr. Pompeo will be seen as coordinating and approving the demands that Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, announce investigations into dubious claims about the Biden family and 2016 election interference as the price for an Oval Office meeting and a resumption of American military aid.

. . . Mr. Pompeo admitted last month that he took part in the July 25 call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky, but has refused to talk in detail about his involvement in the matter. Yet several of his top diplomats have gone to Congress to pull back the curtains on Mr. Trump’s efforts, infuriating the president. State Department employees privately have cheered on those diplomats while criticizing Mr. Pompeo for what they call a failure of leadership.

Mr. Sondland noted that Mr. Pompeo and several of the secretary’s top aides received his emails about Ukraine. “On Aug. 22, I emailed Secretary Pompeo, directly copying Secretariat Kenna,” he said of one instance, referring to Lisa Kenna, the executive secretary. He also said Ms. Kenna would sometimes print out his emails on Ukraine addressed to Mr. Pompeo and “put them in front of him.”

. . . On Wednesday, Mr. Sondland painted a picture of an activist secretary of state who was informed of attempts to force Mr. Zelensky to announce opening the investigations. Replying to the Aug. 22 email from Mr. Sondland, Mr. Pompeo even approved a plan to have Mr. Zelensky tell Mr. Trump at a scheduled meeting in Warsaw that Mr. Zelensky would pledge to move forward “on those issues of importance” to the president, Mr. Sondland said.

“We kept the leadership of the State Department and the N.S.C. informed of our activities,” Mr. Sondland said, referring to Mr. Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time who oversaw the National Security Council staff. “They knew what we were doing and why.”

. . . He added, “State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine efforts, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing.”

Mr. Pompeo appears to have kept his Ukraine and Russia policy staff in the dark on those efforts. In effect, that means diplomats outside the executive offices were trying to carry out the traditional American policy to support Ukraine against Russia — and get the military aid flowing — while Mr. Pompeo was involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts.

After helping Mr. Trump and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, remove Marie L. Yovanovitch as ambassador of Ukraine — she championed anticorruption measures — Mr. Pompeo failed to inform the veteran diplomat he picked to succeed her, William B. Taylor Jr., of the political demands being made of Mr. Zelensky.

In testimony, Mr. Taylor described slowly uncovering the plan, and sending Mr. Pompeo a cable on Aug. 29 saying that withholding the aid was “folly.”

Even then, Mr. Taylor did not appear to know of Mr. Pompeo’s role.

“The Ukraine scandal is a great microcosm of how this administration’s real foreign policy machinery operates,” said Andrew S. Weiss, a former senior official at the National Security Council, State Department and Pentagon who advised on Russia and Ukraine. “Our allies and adversaries all know about this. Yet it’s just so dysfunctional to have people like Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor spinning their wheels out in Kyiv while Pompeo and Giuliani indulged the president’s affection for baseless conspiracy theories and hand-to-hand political combat.”
Ronald Reagan famously said that the most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." This exemplifies the ideological Republican view that government = bad. And right here handy is a Republican government to prove they've been right all along.

When you vote Republican, you get Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who corruptly subjugates our national interest to the petty political needs of the corrupt unfit disloyal (Republican) cartoon character he serves. Which has gotta make you wonder: Why do decent people vote Republican?

That's not news. He's been a hack since he was a member of Congress. His positions are based on self serving interest and a messiah theology. Supposedly his 86 west point cabal are now leading our nation.
 
From “you” to “someone” make up your mind. Weak in any scenario,,,,not to mention the chants of violence, hangings,lock em up, etc....clean your own house before worrying about others.
Hangings?!? If I thought Republicans were all in on hangings, I’d say it myself.

I think all here know I’m not a Trumpster and not happy with many Republican politicians, but people on the Democratic side of this board paint with broad brushes and are getting hostile against all Republicans. I’m very close to leaving the Republican Party, but I’m not encouraged to rejoin the Democratic Party by many Democratic posters here.
 
Last edited:
Hangings?!? If I thought Republicans were all in on hangings, I’d say it myself.

I think all here know I’m not a Trumpster and not happy with many Republican politicians, but people on the Democratic side of this board paint with broad brushes and getting hostile against all Republicans. I’m very close to leaving the Republican Party, but I’m not encouraged to rejoin the Democratic Party by many Democratic posters here.
Forgive me for jumping in, but I think the concern is that Rock wasn't painting with a broad brush - he rarely does. Instead, he was making a very specific, very sharp attack on a specific portion of the Republican party - and a very specific Republican - and you responded by attacking him for a hypothetical broad brush attack that never happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov and iu_a_att
Hangings?!? If I thought Republicans were all in on hangings, I’d say it myself.

I think all here know I’m not a Trumpster and not happy with many Republican politicians, but people on the Democratic side of this board paint with broad brushes and getting hostile against all Republicans. I’m very close to leaving the Republican Party, but I’m not encouraged to rejoin the Democratic Party by many Democratic posters here.
Umm, it appeared you grabbed a broad brush yourself with your comment. As far as the Republican Party, it is nothing but mob mentality at this point. allegiance to a bigoted unstable pathological liar. I could not care any less about your leanings, or not, the other way, but anyone claiming any allegiance to the current abortion called the GOP has rationalized their soul away imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Forgive me for jumping in, but I think the concern is that Rock wasn't painting with a broad brush - he rarely does. Instead, he was making a very specific, very sharp attack on a specific portion of the Republican party - and a very specific Republican - and you responded by attacking him for a hypothetical broad brush attack that never happened.
I disagree, and I think Rock would too. He’s said repeatedly that “no decent Republican would vote for a Republican” or words to that effect. What does that sound like to a Republican like me? I know, but you can tell me what you think it sounds like.
 
I disagree, and I think Rock would too. He’s said repeatedly that “no decent Republican would vote for a Republican” or words to that effect. What does that sound like to a Republican like me? I know, but you can tell me what you think it sounds like.
I think it sounds like the conclusion of about a thousand posts.

I suppose if you want to claim that he's painting a broad brush about people who vote for Trump, you maybe have a point, but since it's a sentiment you seem to agree with, I don't think it carries much power.
 
Umm, it appeared you grabbed a broad brush yourself with your comment. As far as the Republican Party, it is nothing but mob mentality at this point. allegiance to a bigoted unstable pathological liar. I could not care any less about your leanings, or not, the other way, but anyone claiming any allegiance to the current abortion called the GOP has rationalized their soul away imho.
Well, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
 
Well, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Lol, for being rational and stating the obvious,,,great meaningless cliche,,,your hedging your values away is the root of the problem .. grow a pair and call out what u see, cliche’s aside of course,good grief
 
Lol, for being rational and stating the obvious,,,great meaningless cliche,,,your hedging your values away is the root of the problem .. grow a pair and call out what u see, cliche’s aside of course,good grief
Grow a pair? Cliche. Give me a break. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
I disagree, and I think Rock would too. He’s said repeatedly that “no decent Republican would vote for a Republican” or words to that effect. What does that sound like to a Republican like me? I know, but you can tell me what you think it sounds like.
You've taken the principled stance that you won't vote for Trump, and that puts you well ahead of the 90 percent of Republicans who still support the corrupt unfit disloyal cartoon character. But how can you justify voting for the very people who are tearing everything down to enable, empower, and protect Trump? Because that's what even the "good" Republican politicians are doing.
 
You've taken the principled stance that you won't vote for Trump, and that puts you well ahead of the 90 percent of Republicans who still support the corrupt unfit disloyal cartoon character. But how can you justify voting for the very people who are tearing everything down to enable, empower, and protect Trump? Because that's what even the "good" Republican politicians are doing.
I’ve not voted for a Republican since Trump was elected, but I’ll vote for the Democrats or Republicans I agree with most in the next election. I’m no Trumpster, but I’m not a liberal Democrat either. Voting decisions might be more difficult, but I’ll make them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
I’ve not voted for a Republican since Trump was elected, but I’ll vote for the Democrats or Republicans I agree with most in the next election. I’m no Trumpster, but I’m not a liberal Democrat either. Voting decisions might be more difficult, but I’ll make them.
I think Rocks point is that, given the way all republicans currently are in lockstep with trump, the only real question to answer is whether you like trump better than the Democrats. Note, the Democrats are not in lockstep with one another except about trump.should the Democrats retake the presidency and congress then we will see those splits become quite salient. Moreover, should the republicans become non viable the Democrats will split into more liberal and conservative factions that ultimately turns into a new two party system.
 
I agree with Rock.

The Republican party is a corrupt organization that has moved far away from how the two major political parties in this country have traditionally operated. It has become a cult-like instrument of those who would tear down our form of government and move us toward a more Fascist Nationalist model. A party that would elevate DJT to POTUS is a party that has jumped the shark.

This isn't to say that the Democratic Party is Lilly-white. They are not, and if they retake the WH and the Senate, we will begin to see their dysfunction soon enough. But the distinction between the two parties is striking. The GOP is quite simply playing by a different set of rules now. And the only way to reign the GOP back in is by not voting for their candidates.
 
Question to Aloha.

At this point, do you find yourself uncomfortable with both parties?
 
You've taken the principled stance that you won't vote for Trump, and that puts you well ahead of the 90 percent of Republicans who still support the corrupt unfit disloyal cartoon character. But how can you justify voting for the very people who are tearing everything down to enable, empower, and protect Trump? Because that's what even the "good" Republican politicians are doing.
I hate Trump and I recognize he's a deeply corrupt, stupid, traitorous liar who's aggressively putting his interests over those of the country in ways that are doing long-term meaningful harm to the institutions of our republic, but if he wins because the Democrats nominate somebody who outspokenly wants to bring our health care coverage and costs in line with the rest of the developed world in a way that has almost no chance of ever getting through Congress but surely could move the discussion in ways to at least make health care better, so be it.
 
Last edited:
What you post about Republicans, repeatedly, is a big step towards what I’m predicting someone will post.
This may not be fair to you, but in my limited experience in person and on social media, it seems that it's the hard line conservatives who are predicting civil war and that it's only a matter of time before one side is calling for blood.

Yes, there is a clear and sharp divide in our political landscape - and occasionally outliers resort to violence in the name of politics - but I think we're worlds away from actually falling into a bloody civil war.
 
This may not be fair to you, but in my limited experience in person and on social media, it seems that it's the hard line conservatives who are predicting civil war and that it's only a matter of time before one side is calling for blood.

Yes, there is a clear and sharp divide in our political landscape - and occasionally outliers resort to violence in the name of politics - but I think we're worlds away from actually falling into a bloody civil war.
First, today's radio talk shows are virtually 100% rightwing talk shows (no Democrat or leftleaning talk shows to speak of). William F. Buckley, Ross Perot and Ronald Reagan would seem leftwing in comparison to the Hannittys, Ingrahams, Mark Levins or Greg Gutchecks today.

Second, the rightwing talk shows do not talk about actual policy proposals as much as they should. Instead, for example, if they even mention healthcare, they do not, do not, do not, actually describe a Republican or rightwing proposal to improve healthcare, but instead they fall into an anti-Democrat slam fest with claims that everybody should oppose what they claim to be the "socialist" healthcare proposals of the Democrats (without ever saying what their own proposals are). They can't seem to promote their own policy positions except by criticizing the corresponding Democrat proposals.

Third, the radio talk show format itself foments fear, anger, ridicule and (most importantly) unrestrained desperation in order to get ratings bumps. not political discourse. Every day, these shows promote a message of absolute emergency/ desperation like "we have to oppose these Democrats right now or else America will become both socialist and communist !!!" This fabricated desperation automatically labels any proposals from unapproved sources as being leftwing, socialist, communist etc. and thus encourages the rightwing base to reject all such proposals without ever thinking about them.

I don't think the hosts on Democrat/liberal talk shows on TV (virtually none are on radio) are quick to interrupt and slam guests except in the area of racial slurs or biases. So, yeah, while both sides seem a bit intolerant right now, I blame the hardline conservatives more than 50% for today's inability to have a rational political discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
First, today's radio talk shows are virtually 100% rightwing talk shows (no Democrat or leftleaning talk shows to speak of). William F. Buckley, Ross Perot and Ronald Reagan would seem leftwing in comparison to the Hannittys, Ingrahams, Mark Levins or Greg Gutchecks today.

Second, the rightwing talk shows do not talk about actual policy proposals as much as they should. Instead, for example, if they even mention healthcare, they do not, do not, do not, actually describe a Republican or rightwing proposal to improve healthcare, but instead they fall into an anti-Democrat slam fest with claims that everybody should oppose what they claim to be the "socialist" healthcare proposals of the Democrats (without ever saying what their own proposals are). They can't seem to promote their own policy positions except by criticizing the corresponding Democrat proposals.

Third, the radio talk show format itself foments fear, anger, ridicule and (most importantly) unrestrained desperation in order to get ratings bumps. not political discourse. Every day, these shows promote a message of absolute emergency/ desperation like "we have to oppose these Democrats right now or else America will become both socialist and communist !!!" This fabricated desperation automatically labels any proposals from unapproved sources as being leftwing, socialist, communist etc. and thus encourages the rightwing base to reject all such proposals without ever thinking about them.

I don't think the hosts on Democrat/liberal talk shows on TV (virtually none are on radio) are quick to interrupt and slam guests except in the area of racial slurs or biases. So, yeah, while both sides seem a bit intolerant right now, I blame the hardline conservatives more than 50% for today's inability to have a rational political discussion.
Why are there not any left wing radio talk shows?
 
Question to Aloha.

At this point, do you find yourself uncomfortable with both parties?

Haven’t I said that?

Aloha, my impression from your posts was that you were uncomfortable with both parties, and you confirmed my Impression.

The irony from my perspective is Trump in 2016 appealed to folks who were disappointed with both parties. A further irony being that Never Trumpsters such as you and I share this disappointment with some Trump supporters.

On top of this, you and I may not find a suitable Democrat candidate for the presidency while the Trumpsters have their man.
 
Outrage and fear mongering and divisiveness and gaslighting is what sells. The lefties can't compete with your guys.

Why do people listen to talk radio, especially given it is specifically designed to make one upset. I wonder if a study can be done to track road rage incidents and talk radio.
 
Why do people listen to talk radio, especially given it is specifically designed to make one upset. I wonder if a study can be done to track road rage incidents and talk radio.

Listen to Fox News and conservative talk show hosts on local radio as I pedal my stationary bike. Helps get the heart rate high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kobis18
Why do people listen to talk radio, especially given it is specifically designed to make one upset. I wonder if a study can be done to track road rage incidents and talk radio.
My parents listened to Rush on the radio at home. They then switched to Fox on TV in the evening.
 
I’ve not voted for a Republican since Trump was elected, but I’ll vote for the Democrats or Republicans I agree with most in the next election. I’m no Trumpster, but I’m not a liberal Democrat either. Voting decisions might be more difficult, but I’ll make them.
I honestly don't get how you could see the GOP's behavior during the impeachment proceedings and even consider voting for anything to do with them. It's my opinion that we're now far beyond voting on pure policy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT