382
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] bennel@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

The funniest example of this being the development of COVID vaccines

I disagree. The funniest example of Trump never admitting he's wrong is definitely the Four Seasons Landscaping press release.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] QHC@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Drawing on a map with sharpie and thinking nobody would notice is definitely in the top 5.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Doesn't he still want the Central Park 5 executed even though they have been proven innocent?

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

But he didn't state the point you're trying to counter. Never said she was a good person or politican.

[-] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
382 points (100.0% liked)

News

36618 readers
2180 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS